Differences in Two Multiarticulating Myoelectric Hands for Facilitating Activities of Daily Living in Individuals with Transradial Amputation: A Cross-Sectional Study

IF 0.4 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
A. Kannenberg, Russell L Lundstrom, K. Hibler, Shawn Swanson Johnson
{"title":"Differences in Two Multiarticulating Myoelectric Hands for Facilitating Activities of Daily Living in Individuals with Transradial Amputation: A Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"A. Kannenberg, Russell L Lundstrom, K. Hibler, Shawn Swanson Johnson","doi":"10.1097/JPO.0000000000000411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Introduction Research with multiarticulating prosthetic hands on patient-reported ease of activities of daily living (ADLs) and usefulness is still limited. This study aimed at comparing ease of ADL performance and usefulness of two common multiarticulating prosthetic hands. Methods Twenty subjects with transradial amputation wearing the bebionic (n = 10) or i-Limb (n = 10) hands were assessed with a hybrid Orthotics and Prosthetics User Survey–Upper Extremity Functional Status (OPUS-UEFS)/Prosthetic Upper Extremity Functional Index (PUFI) outcome measure previously used in a study with another multigrip prosthetic hand. Results There were no significant differences between the bebionic and i-Limb hands. However, the analysis of individual activities revealed that each multiarticulating hand had specific strengths and weaknesses compared with a historic control group with conventional myoelectric hands. Discussion Both multiarticulating hands may improve ease of performing ADLs compared with conventional myoelectric hands. However, more grip types available do not necessarily result in greater ease or usefulness compared with advanced hands with fewer grip types. Conclusions Clinicians must match the patients' functional needs with the differential functional profiles of the available multiarticulating hands. Clinical Relevance The present study is the first to provide comparative patient-reported outcomes on 3 multigrip prosthetic hands as well as standard myoelectric hands in 23 common ADLs. The distinct patient-reported ease and usefulness profiles of the different hands may inform and support clinicians' decision-making on hand selection for individual patients with transradial amputation.","PeriodicalId":53702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics","volume":"35 1","pages":"38 - 43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0000000000000411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction Research with multiarticulating prosthetic hands on patient-reported ease of activities of daily living (ADLs) and usefulness is still limited. This study aimed at comparing ease of ADL performance and usefulness of two common multiarticulating prosthetic hands. Methods Twenty subjects with transradial amputation wearing the bebionic (n = 10) or i-Limb (n = 10) hands were assessed with a hybrid Orthotics and Prosthetics User Survey–Upper Extremity Functional Status (OPUS-UEFS)/Prosthetic Upper Extremity Functional Index (PUFI) outcome measure previously used in a study with another multigrip prosthetic hand. Results There were no significant differences between the bebionic and i-Limb hands. However, the analysis of individual activities revealed that each multiarticulating hand had specific strengths and weaknesses compared with a historic control group with conventional myoelectric hands. Discussion Both multiarticulating hands may improve ease of performing ADLs compared with conventional myoelectric hands. However, more grip types available do not necessarily result in greater ease or usefulness compared with advanced hands with fewer grip types. Conclusions Clinicians must match the patients' functional needs with the differential functional profiles of the available multiarticulating hands. Clinical Relevance The present study is the first to provide comparative patient-reported outcomes on 3 multigrip prosthetic hands as well as standard myoelectric hands in 23 common ADLs. The distinct patient-reported ease and usefulness profiles of the different hands may inform and support clinicians' decision-making on hand selection for individual patients with transradial amputation.
桡骨截肢患者两种多关节肌电手在促进日常生活活动方面的差异:一项横断面研究
摘要引言多关节假手对患者日常生活活动的便利性(ADL)和实用性的研究仍然有限。本研究旨在比较两种常见的多关节假手的ADL表现的简易性和实用性。方法采用矫形器和假肢用户调查-上肢功能状态(OPUS-UEFS)/假肢上肢功能指数(PUFI。结果仿生手与i-Limb手无明显差异。然而,对个体活动的分析表明,与传统肌电手的历史对照组相比,每只多关节手都有特定的优势和劣势。讨论与传统肌电手相比,多关节手可以提高ADL的执行难度。然而,与握把类型较少的高级手相比,可用的握把类型更多并不一定会带来更大的便利性或实用性。结论临床医生必须将患者的功能需求与可用的多关节手的不同功能特征相匹配。临床相关性本研究首次提供了23种常见ADL中3只多裂假手和标准肌电手的比较患者报告结果。不同手的不同患者报告的易用性和有用性特征可能为临床医生选择经桡侧截肢患者的手提供信息和支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics Medicine-Rehabilitation
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: Published quarterly by the AAOP, JPO: Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics provides information on new devices, fitting and fabrication techniques, and patient management experiences. The focus is on prosthetics and orthotics, with timely reports from related fields such as orthopaedic research, occupational therapy, physical therapy, orthopaedic surgery, amputation surgery, physical medicine, biomedical engineering, psychology, ethics, and gait analysis. Each issue contains research-based articles reviewed and approved by a highly qualified editorial board and an Academy self-study quiz offering two PCE''s.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信