Comfort and function remain key factors in upper limb prosthetic abandonment: findings of a scoping review

Smail, Lauren Christine; Neal, Chantelle; Wilkins, Courtney; Packham, Tara

doi:10.1080/17483107.2020.1738567

Cited by 91 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditional methods of making sockets, which comprise primarily casting, modification and lamination, can produce comfortable sockets within a reasonable time frame [4]. However, patient feedback has identified lack of comfort as a consistent cause of dissatisfaction and prosthesis abandonment [5]- [8]. Amputees must make several visits to specialist clinics, due to the nature of plaster casting [4], [9], [10], and can wait around 2-5 weeks to receive their socket [3], [11]- [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite such potential, 3D printing has been used primarily for grasping devices [26]. Several studies have found a need for the improvement of current trans-radial sockets with regard to comfort, aesthetics and other factors [5], [27], [28]. 3D printed sockets for lower limb have shown early success, in terms of improved comfort and reduction of contact pressure [19], however similar success is yet to be documented in literature for upper-limb.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

3D-Printing and Upper-Limb Prosthetic Sockets: Promises and Pitfalls

Olsen

Day

Dupan

et al. 2021

IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modernising the way upper-limb prosthetic sockets are made has seen limited progress. The casting techniques that are employed in clinics today resemble those developed over 50 years ago and there is still a heavy reliance on manual labour. Modern manufacturing methods such as 3D scanning and printing are often presented as ready-to-use solutions for producing low-cost functional devices, with public perceptions being largely shaped by the superficial media representation and advertising. The promise is that modern socket manufacturing methods can improve patient satisfaction, decrease manufacturing times and reduce the workload in the clinic. However, the perception in the clinical community is that total conversion to digital methods in a clinical environment is not straightforward. Anecdotally, there is currently a disconnect between those developing technology to produce prosthetic devices and the actual needs of clinicians and people with limb difference. In this paper, we demonstrate strengths and drawbacks of a fully digitised, low-cost trans-radial diagnostic socket making process, informed by clinical principles. We present volunteer feedback on the digitally created sockets and provide expert commentary on the use of digital tools in upper-limb socket manufacturing. We show that it is possible to utilise 3D scanning and printing, but only if the process is informed by expert knowledge. We bring examples to demonstrate how and why the process may go wrong. Finally, we provide discussion on why progress in modernising the manufacturing of upper-limb sockets has been slow yet it is still too early to rule out digital methods.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D-Printing and Upper-Limb Prosthetic Sockets: Promises and Pitfalls

Olsen

Day

Dupan

et al. 2021

IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Pattern Recognition (PR) based myoelectric control has been proposed to reach a more intuitive and adaptable control of the prosthesis in order to overcome these limits and eliminate the need for mode switching; these PR strategies do not require independent muscle sites, but they consider muscular activation patterns of different muscle sites to classify several motion classes. In spite of the progress made in this field based on EMG-PR [ 14 ], the main reasons for the abandonment of the prosthetic device by many users can be imputed to comfort and function [ 15 ]. Regarding the function, technological factors, as the type of prosthetic control and the presence or absence of sensory feedback [ 16 ], have a key role in avoiding the decision of prosthesis abandonment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Control Strategies and Performance Assessment of Upper-Limb TMR Prostheses: A Review

Mereu

Leone

Gentile

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of technological and surgical techniques has made it possible to obtain an even more intuitive control of multiple joints using advanced prosthetic systems. Targeted Muscle Reinnervation (TMR) is considered to be an innovative and relevant surgical technique for improving the prosthetic control for people with different amputation levels of the limb. Indeed, TMR surgery makes it possible to obtain reinnervated areas that act as biological amplifiers of the motor control. On the technological side, a great deal of research has been conducted in order to evaluate various types of myoelectric prosthetic control strategies, whether direct control or pattern recognition-based control. In the literature, different control performance metrics, which have been evaluated on TMR subjects, have been introduced, but no accepted reference standard defines the better strategy for evaluating the prosthetic control. Indeed, the presence of several evaluation tests that are based on different metrics makes it difficult the definition of standard guidelines for comprehending the potentiality of the proposed control systems. Additionally, there is a lack of evidence about the comparison of different evaluation approaches or the presence of guidelines on the most suitable test to proceed for a TMR patients case study. Thus, this review aims at identifying these limitations by examining the several studies in the literature on TMR subjects, with different amputation levels, and proposing a standard method for evaluating the control performance metrics.

show abstract

“…Traditional methods of making sockets, which comprise primarily casting, modification and lamination, can produce comfortable sockets within a reasonable time frame [11]. However, patient feedback has identified lack of comfort as a consistent cause of dissatisfaction and prosthesis abandonment [4,21,28,38]. Amputees must make several visits to specialist clinics, due to the nature of plaster casting [11,27,34], and can wait around 2-5 weeks to receive their socket [5,19,32,43].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D-Printing and upper-limb prosthetic sockets; promises and pitfalls

Olsen

Day

Dupan

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modernising the way upper-limb prosthetic sockets are made has seen limited progress. The casting techniques that are employed in clinics today resemble those developed over 50 years ago and there is still a heavy reliance on manual labour. Modern manufacturing methods such as 3D scanning and printing are often presented as ready-to-use solutions for producing low-cost functional devices, with public perceptions being largely shaped by the superficial media representation and advertising. The promise is that modern socket manufacturing methods can improve patient satisfaction, decrease manufacturing times and reduce the workload in the clinic. However, the perception in the clinical community is that total conversion to digital methods in a clinical environment is not straightforward. Anecdotally, there is currently a disconnect between those developing technology to produce prosthetic devices and the actual needs of clinicians and people with limb difference. In this paper, we demonstrate strengths and drawbacks of a fully digitised, low-cost trans-radial diagnostic socket making process, informed by clinical expertise. We present volunteer feedback on the digitally created sockets and provide expert commentary on the use of digital tools in upper-limb socket manufacturing. We show that it is possible to utilise 3D scanning and printing, but only if the process is informed by expert knowledge. We bring examples to demonstrate how and why the process may go wrong. Finally, we provide discussion on why progress in modernising the manufacturing of upper-limb sockets has been slow yet it is still too early to rule out digital methods.

show abstract

Comfort and function remain key factors in upper limb prosthetic abandonment: findings of a scoping review

Cited by 91 publications

References 43 publications

3D-Printing and Upper-Limb Prosthetic Sockets: Promises and Pitfalls

3D-Printing and Upper-Limb Prosthetic Sockets: Promises and Pitfalls

Control Strategies and Performance Assessment of Upper-Limb TMR Prostheses: A Review

3D-Printing and upper-limb prosthetic sockets; promises and pitfalls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About