Prosthetic Use in Adult Upper Limb Amputees

Abstract

Three hundred and fourteen adult upper limb amputees were reviewed retrospectively at the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board. A questionnaire was used to evaluate the use of body and electrically powered prostheses. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 49 years with a mean of 15 years. Results indicated that complete or useful acceptance of an electrically powered prosthesis was reported by 69 of 83 amputees (83%); 199 of 291 amputees (68%) used the cable operated hook, 57 of 291 (20%) used the cable operated hand and 40 of 83 (48%) used the cosmetic prosthesis. The majority of amputees used more than one prosthesis for their functional needs and should be fitted with more than one type of prosthesis. Acceptance of an upper limb prosthesis by 89% (196/220) of below-elbow, 76% (56/74) of above-elbow and 60% (12/20) of high level amputees indicates that for most upper limb amputees, their prostheses are well used and essential to their personal and employment activities.

Osseointegration amputation prostheses on the upper limbs

“…It is to be hoped that new technology, such as nerve coupling, etc., could be a future solution. 40 The harness causes discomfort, 2,8,41 and as no harness is needed for suspension, a higher degree of comfort can be accomplished. Donning and doffing is simple and the prosthetic fixation is reliable.…”

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Problems with excessive sweating and irritation from the harness or socket have been reported. 2,6,[8][9][10][11][12] Other areas in need of improvement include range of movement of the hand/arm, 7 socket suspension, and the ability to rely on the prosthesis being properly secured. This is especially evident after amputation at the transhumeral (TH) level, where a harness is most frequently needed, or at the thumb level, where part of the hand has to be covered to provide prosthetic suspension.…”

Embroidered Electrodes for Control of Affordable Myoelectric Prostheses

“…To address this, recent research in the area of low-cost mechatronically active prostheses has investigated alternatives that are inexpensive, allow for robust use, and maximise user self-reliance. In contrast to passive prostheses or classical hooks, these allow for increased quality of life and employability [11] by enabling users to perform more task related with daily activities (e.g., grasping, typing). Low-cost solutions such as the Touch Hand (see Fig.…”

The Rice Haptic Rocker: Skin stretch haptic feedback with the Pisa/IIT SoftHand

“…Restoring hand functionality in upper limb amputees is a very challenging task, with the high dexterity, versatility, sensitivity, and ease of use of a natural human hand being extremely difficult to reproduce in artificial hands. In the past, most artificial hands used in clinical practice were either purely cosmetic or body powered [1], with the actuation of the end effector realized typically through cables pulled by the shoulder. Body powered prostheses have the advantage of being simple and intrinsically able to partially convey haptic feedback to the user through the actuation; however they can also suffer from lack of comfort and smaller grip forces compared to healthy hands [2].…”