No abstract

Abstract-This case study report demonstrates the use of motion analysis with a modification of the Box and Blocks test. The goal was to quantify observed improvements in compensatory movements and simultaneous control in a subject using different prostheses before and after targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) surgery. This is a single case study with data collection using a body-powered prosthesis pre-TMR surgery and 6 mo postfitting with a TMR myoelectric prosthesis. The Box and Blocks test was modified for cyclical motion within a motion capture laboratory. With the TMR myoelectric prosthesis, the subject was able to simultaneously activate the hand and elbow. Task performance was slower, but there was improved elbow flexion and less trunk compensatory motion than with the body-powered prosthesis. There are several limitations to the case study because there is no direct comparison of myoelectric performance before and after TMR surgery; however, the current report presents a potential method to quantify quality of motion and compensatory movements of prosthetic users. With further study, this test procedure has the potential to be a useful outcome measure for future standardized assessments of upper-limb prosthetic function.

Abstract-Motion analysis is an important tool for examining upper-limb function. Based on previous work demonstrating a modified Box and Blocks (BB) test with motion capture to assess prosthetic performance, we collected data in 16 nondisabled participants to establish normative kinematics for this test. Four motions of the modified BB test were analyzed to establish kinematic data for upper-limb and trunk motion. The test was repeated for right and left arms in standing and seated positions. Data were compared using a nonparametric Friedman test. No differences were found between right-and lefthand performance other than for task completion time. Small but significant differences were found for standing and seated performance, with slightly greater ranges in standing for axial trunk rotation, medial-lateral sternum displacement, and anterior-posterior hand displacement. The kinematic trajectories, however, were very consistent. The consistency in our nondisabled data suggests that normative kinematic trajectories can be defined for this task. This motion capture procedure may add to the understanding of movement in upper-limb impairment and may be useful for measuring the effect of interventions to improve upper-limb function.