Using potential energy to measure work related activities for persons wearing upper limb prostheses

Black, Nancy; Biden, E.; Rickards, Jeremy

doi:10.1017/s0263574704001341

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, ACMC assesses how the prosthesis is normally used to assist the sound hand to perform bimanual activities. It has been reported that prosthesis users prefer to be assessed in their usual way of using the prosthesis [47], and consistent results are observed if they are allowed to perform the activities in their usual way [43]. Both assessment procedures are useful for different purposes, and it is important for clinicians to be aware of the different assessment procedures before they evaluate their clients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…It is not easy to compare the MDC values of the ACMC and the AM-ULA because these two instruments are quite different in their assessment procedures. Although unilateral users rarely use the prosthesis to perform one-hand activities [43][44][45][46], the AM-ULA requests unilateral users to perform such activities with the prosthesis so that the assessment can be compared with the use of a sound limb and a ceiling effect is also avoided. In contrast, ACMC assesses how the prosthesis is normally used to assist the sound hand to perform bimanual activities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0

Lindner¹,

Langius‐Eklöf

Hermansson

2014

J Rehabil Res Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control (ACMC) is an observation-based tool that evaluates ability to control a myoelectric prosthetic hand. Validity evidence led to ACMC version 2.0, but the test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC) of the ACMC have never been evaluated. Investigation of rater agreements in this version was also needed because it has new definitions in certain rating categories and items. Upper-limb prosthesis users (n = 25, 15 congenital, 10 acquired; mean age 27.5 yr) performed one standardized activity twice, 2 to 5 wk apart. Activity performances were videorecorded and assessed by two ACMC raters. Data were analyzed by weighted kappa, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman method. For test-retest reliability, weighted kappa agreements were fair to excellent (0.52 to 1.00), ICC 2,1 was 0.94, and one user was located outside the limits of agreement in the Bland-Altman plot. MDC 95 was less than or equal to 0.55 logits (1 rater) and 0.69 logits (2 raters). For interrater reliability, weighted kappa agreements were fair to excellent in both sessions (0.44 to 1.00), and ICC 2,1 was 0.95 (test) and 0.92 (retest). Intrarater agreement (rater 1) was also excellent (ICC 3,1 0.98). Evidence regarding the reliability of the ACMC is satisfactory and MDC 95 can be used to indicate change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0

Lindner¹,

Langius‐Eklöf

Hermansson

2014

J Rehabil Res Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CTD, or worn-limb syndrome, is frequently found in people with unilateral upper-limb loss [12,42]. Black et al found that 53 percent of unilateral upper-limb patients using a prosthetic device had pain in their remaining arm, most of which was associated with CTD [43]. CTD and overuse injuries are also estimated to be three times more likely in people with unilateral upperlimb loss than in the general workforce, in which CTD is also frequently reported [43][44][45][46][47].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Black et al found that 53 percent of unilateral upper-limb patients using a prosthetic device had pain in their remaining arm, most of which was associated with CTD [43]. CTD and overuse injuries are also estimated to be three times more likely in people with unilateral upperlimb loss than in the general workforce, in which CTD is also frequently reported [43][44][45][46][47]. In our study's two groups, CTD was significantly higher (60%) in the Vietnam group, who are 40 years from their limb loss, than in the OIF/OEF group (38%), who are 3 to 4 years from their limb loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unilateral upper-limb loss: Satisfaction and prosthetic-device use in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts

McFarland¹,

Winkler²,

Heinemann³

et al. 2010

JRRD

197

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Prosthetic use and satisfaction in wounded servicemembers and veterans with unilateral upper-limb loss has not been thoroughly explored. Through a national survey, we enrolled 47 participants from the Vietnam conflict and 50 from Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/ OEF) with combat-associated major unilateral upper-limb loss. Upper-limb prosthetic devices were used by 70% of the Vietnam group and 76% of the OIF/OEF group. Mechanical/bodypowered upper-limb devices were favored by the Vietnam group, while a combination of myoelectric/hybrid and mechanical/body-powered devices were favored by the OIF/OEF group. Upper-limb devices were completely abandoned in 30% of the Vietnam and 22% of the OIF/OEF groups. Abandonment was more frequent for transhumeral and more proximal levels (42% of Vietnam and 40% of OIF/OEF) than more distal limb-loss levels. Upper-limb prostheses were rejected because of dissatisfaction with the device by significantly fewer (23%) members of the Vietnam group than the OIF/OEF group (45%) (p < 0.001). Most common reasons for rejection included pain, poor comfort, and lack of functionality. A significant paradigm shift has been noted in the OIF/OEF group, who use a greater number and diversity of upper-limb prostheses than the Vietnam group.

show abstract

“…Upperlimb motion analysis is not novel to the prosthetic population [16], but there is a lack of consensus in defining a standardized task or methodology to allow comparison and consistency across investigators. More recently, standardized methods for upper-limb functional tasks have been proposed by various authors [17][18][19] in order to define an upper-limb motion analysis protocol analogous to lowerlimb gait analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case report of modified Box and Blocks test with motion capture to measure prosthetic function

Hebert

Lewicke²

2012

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Using potential energy to measure work related activities for persons wearing upper limb prostheses

Cited by 9 publications

References 13 publications

Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0

Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0

Unilateral upper-limb loss: Satisfaction and prosthetic-device use in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts

Case report of modified Box and Blocks test with motion capture to measure prosthetic function

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About