Effect of multi-grip myoelectric prosthetic hands on daily activities, pain-related disability and prosthesis use compared with single-grip myoelectric prostheses: A single-case study

Widehammar, Cathrine; Hiyoshi, Ayako; Lidström-Holmqvist, Kajsa; Lindner, Helen Y; Hermansson, Liselotte

doi:10.2340/jrm.v53.807

Cited by 7 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further development are needed with inertial sensors in order to record longer activities in more ecological situations. Similarly, this method could be useful to evaluate other innovative medical devices such advanced polydigital hand [82], more flexible wrist prostheses, or the impact of PLOS ONE artificial proprioceptive feedback. Kinematic analysis could be operational for the choice and prescription of prosthesis and in order to guide rehabilitation techniques while preventing musculoskeletal disorders.…”

Section: Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinematic analysis of impairments and compensatory motor behavior during prosthetic grasping in below-elbow amputees

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After a major upper limb amputation, the use of myoelectric prosthesis as assistive devices is possible. However, these prostheses remain quite difficult to control for grasping and manipulation of daily life objects. The aim of the present observational case study is to document the kinematics of grasping in a group of 10 below-elbow amputated patients fitted with a myoelectric prosthesis in order to describe and better understand their compensatory strategies. They performed a grasping to lift task toward 3 objects (a mug, a cylinder and a cone) placed at two distances within the reaching area in front of the patients. The kinematics of the trunk and upper-limb on the non-amputated and prosthetic sides were recorded with 3 electromagnetic Polhemus sensors placed on the hand, the forearm (or the corresponding site on the prosthesis) and the ipsilateral acromion. The 3D position of the elbow joint and the shoulder and elbow angles were calculated thanks to a preliminary calibration of the sensor position. We examined first the effect of side, distance and objects with non-parametric statistics. Prosthetic grasping was characterized by severe temporo-spatial impairments consistent with previous clinical or kinematic observations. The grasping phase was prolonged and the reaching and grasping components uncoupled. The 3D hand displacement was symmetrical in average, but with some differences according to the objects. Compensatory strategies involved the trunk and the proximal part of the upper-limb, as shown by a greater 3D displacement of the elbow for close target and a greater forward displacement of the acromion, particularly for far targets. The hand orientation at the time of grasping showed marked side differences with a more frontal azimuth, and a more “thumb-up” roll. The variation of hand orientation with the object on the prosthetic side, suggested that the lack of finger and wrist mobility imposed some adaptation of hand pose relative to the object. The detailed kinematic analysis allows more insight into the mechanisms of the compensatory strategies that could be due to both increased distal or proximal kinematic constraints. A better knowledge of those compensatory strategies is important for the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders and the development of innovative prosthetics.

show abstract

Section: Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinematic analysis of impairments and compensatory motor behavior during prosthetic grasping in below-elbow amputees

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The case report of van der Niet et al found no significant differences on OPUS-UEFS scores between an MHP and an SHP hand [ 8 ]. Additionally, five studies showed no differences between the two hands on the SHAP and BBT [ 8 – 10 , 17 , 18 ]. Only one study stated an increase in fine motor control with an MHP [ 6 ], although it should be noted that this research focussed on the Michelangelo hand, which was excluded from the current study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evaluation measures that have been mentioned in the literature are the Dutch version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive technology (D-QUEST), visual analogue scales (VAS-scores), and the electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) to assess the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses (PUF-ULP) [ 19 ]. Two previous studies showed that users were more satisfied with the MHP than with the SHP [ 8 , 18 ]. However, another study revealed that half of the MHP users switched to a different terminal device within a year [ 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The multi-grip and standard myoelectric hand prosthesis compared: does the multi-grip hand live up to its promise?

Kerver

Schuurmans

Sluis

et al. 2023

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Multi-grip myoelectric hand prostheses (MHPs), with five movable and jointed fingers, have been developed to increase functionality. However, literature comparing MHPs with standard myoelectric hand prostheses (SHPs) is limited and inconclusive. To establish whether MHPs increase functionality, we compared MHPs with SHPs on all categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-model (ICF-model). Methods MHP users (N = 14, 64.3% male, mean age = 48.6 years) performed physical measurements (i.e., Refined Clothespin Relocation Test (RCRT), Tray-test, Box and Blocks Test, Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure) with their MHP and an SHP to compare the joint angle coordination and functionality related to the ICF-categories ‘Body Function’ and ‘Activities’ (within-group comparisons). SHP users (N = 19, 68.4% male, mean age = 58.1 years) and MHP users completed questionnaires/scales (i.e., Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey—The Upper Extremity Functional Status Survey /OPUS–UEFS, Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales for upper extremity/TAPES-Upper, Research and Development-36/RAND-36, EQ-5D-5L, visual analogue scale/VAS, the Dutch version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive technology/D-Quest, patient-reported outcome measure to assess the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses/PUF-ULP) to compare user experiences and quality of life in the ICF-categories ‘Activities’, ‘Participation’, and ‘Environmental Factors’ (between-group comparisons). Results ‘Body Function’ and ‘Activities’: nearly all users of MHPs had similar joint angle coordination patterns with an MHP as when they used an SHP. The RCRT in the upward direction was performed slower in the MHP condition compared to the SHP condition. No other differences in functionality were found. ‘Participation’: MHP users had a lower EQ-5D-5L utility score; experienced more pain or limitations due to pain (i.e., measured with the RAND-36). ‘Environmental Factors’: MHPs scored better than SHPs on the VAS-item holding/shaking hands. The SHP scored better than the MHP on five VAS-items (i.e., noise, grip force, vulnerability, putting clothes on, physical effort to control) and the PUF-ULP. Conclusion MHPs did not show relevant differences in outcomes compared to SHPs on any of the ICF-categories. This underlines the importance of carefully considering whether the MHP is the most suitable option for an individual taking into account the additional costs of MHPs.

show abstract

“…For example, power grip was used more often at home (median use of 52%) than during to in-lab testing (21%) while pinch and lateral grip were used less at home (4% and 14%, respectively) than during in-lab testing (11% and 25%, respectively). Widehammar et al [28] investigated the effect of multi-vs single-grip myoelectric prosthetic hands using the Ottobock Bebionic hand (14 grip types). Individuals with a transcarpal amputation controlled the hand using direct control including myoelectric switching (in combination with using a button on the hand) for the multi-grip option.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over six months of home use, performance and satisfaction with the multi-grip hand increased over time. While it was possible for individuals to control the multi-grip hand with standard 2-site direct control, they did not evaluate grip switching nor whether users selected the appropriate grip [28].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

User Performance With a Transradial Multi-Articulating Hand Prosthesis During Pattern Recognition and Direct Control Home Use

Simon

Turner

Miller

et al. 2023

IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increasing availability of more advanced prostheses individuals with a transradial amputation can now be fit with single to multi-degree of freedom hands. Reliable and accurate control of these multi-grip hands still remains challenging. This is the first multi-user study to investigate athome control and use of a multi-grip hand prosthesis under pattern recognition and direct control. Individuals with a transradial amputation were fitted with and trained to use an OSSUR i-Limb Ultra Revolution with Coapt COMPLETE CONTROL system. They participated in two 8-week home trials using the hand under myoelectric direct and pattern recognition control in a randomized order. While at home, participants demonstrated broader usage of grips in pattern recognition compared to direct control. After the home trial, they showed significant improvements in the Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control (ACMC) outcome measure while using pattern recognition control compared to direct control; other outcome measures showed no differences between control styles. Additionally, this study provided a unique opportunity to evaluate EMG signals during home use. Offline analysis of calibration data showed that users were 81.5% [7.1] accurate across a range of three to five grips. Although EMG signal noise was identified during some calibrations, overall EMG quality was sufficient to provide users with control performance at or better than direct control.

show abstract

Effect of multi-grip myoelectric prosthetic hands on daily activities, pain-related disability and prosthesis use compared with single-grip myoelectric prostheses: A single-case study

Cited by 7 publications

References 37 publications

Kinematic analysis of impairments and compensatory motor behavior during prosthetic grasping in below-elbow amputees

Kinematic analysis of impairments and compensatory motor behavior during prosthetic grasping in below-elbow amputees

The multi-grip and standard myoelectric hand prosthesis compared: does the multi-grip hand live up to its promise?

User Performance With a Transradial Multi-Articulating Hand Prosthesis During Pattern Recognition and Direct Control Home Use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About