Fitting a Bilateral Transhumeral Amputee With Utensil Prostheses and Their Functional Assessment 10 Years Later: A Case Report

Adaptable Poly-Articulated Bionic Hands EnhanceBoth Performance and User's Perception in Bilateral Amputation: A Case Study

This article evaluates and compares the performance and perception of prosthetic devices based on different design principles, a traditional rigid gripper and an adaptable poly-articulated hand, in a pre- and post-training protocol with an individual with bilateral amputation. As a representative of the first class, we use commercial hands (Ottobock's MyoHand VariPlus Speed), which is a widely adopted model by prosthesis users worldwide. We compare these with two SoftHand Pro hands, which are experimental prototypes exhibiting 19 articulations actuated by one single motor, and are inspired by human hand motor control models. Results show that the individual with bilateral amputation, who was a non-expert myoelectric user, achieved better performance with adaptive poly-articulated hands. Furthermore, the acceptation, satisfaction and perceived functionality of the user were considerably higher for the SoftHand Pro. An observational analysis of the patient's behaviour by experienced therapists suggests that adaptable poly-articulated hands reduced compensatory movements and cognitive load. Using soft technologies may be especially advantageous for individuals with bilateral amputation, who present a very limited residual mobility and can largely benefit from the active use of their artificial arms in everyday life.

Prosthetic Rehabilitation and Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation following Upper Limb Loss

BACKGROUND

Upper limb loss is a devastating condition with dramatic physical, psychological, financial, and social consequences. Improvements in the fields of prosthetics and vascularized composite allotransplantation have opened exciting new frontiers for treatment and rehabilitation following upper limb loss. Each modality offers a unique set of advantages and limitations with regard to the restoration of hand function following amputation.

METHODS

Presented in this article is a discussion outlining the complex considerations and decisions encountered when determining patient appropriateness for either prosthetic rehabilitation or vascularized composite allotransplantation following upper limb loss. In this review, the authors examine how psychosocial factors, nature of injury, rehabilitation course, functional outcomes, and risks and benefits may affect overall patient selection for either rehabilitative approach.

RESULTS

This review summarizes the current state of the literature. Advancements in both prosthetic and biological strategies demonstrate promise with regard to facilitating rehabilitation following upper limb loss. However, there remains a dearth of research directly comparing outcomes in prosthetic rehabilitation to that following upper extremity transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have performed a direct comparison between patients undergoing vascularized composite allotransplantation and those undergoing prosthetic rehabilitation. Upper extremity transplantation and prosthetic reconstruction should not be viewed as competing options, but rather as two treatment modalities with different risk-to-benefit profiles and indications.

Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: Systematic literature review

The choice of a myoelectric or body-powered upper-limb prosthesis can be determined using factors including control, function, feedback, cosmesis, and rejection. Although body-powered and myoelectric control strategies offer unique functions, many prosthesis users must choose one. A systematic review was conducted to determine differences between myoelectric and body-powered prostheses to inform evidence-based clinical practice regarding prescription of these devices and training of users. A search of 9 databases identified 462 unique publications. Ultimately, 31 of them were included and 11 empirical evidence statements were developed. Conflicting evidence has been found in terms of the relative functional performance of body-powered and myoelectric prostheses. Body-powered prostheses have been shown to have advantages in durability, training time, frequency of adjustment, maintenance, and feedback; however, they could still benefit from improvements of control. Myoelectric prostheses have been shown to improve cosmesis and phantom-limb pain and are more accepted for light=intensity work. Currently, evidence is insufficient to conclude that either system provides a significant general advantage. Prosthetic selection should be based on a patient's individual needs and include personal preferences, prosthetic experience, and functional needs. This work demonstrates that there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding functional differences in upper-limb prostheses.

Effect of training on upper-extremity prosthetic performance and motor learning: a single-case study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the impact of a new prosthesis on an experienced and highly motivated prosthetic limb user, to evaluate the effects of training and the ability of clinical measures to detect change, and to gain insight into the mechanisms by which improvement occurs.

DESIGN

A single-case study.

SETTING

An outpatient clinic.

PARTICIPANT

A bilateral high-arm amputee (right shoulder disarticulation, left above elbow).

INTERVENTIONS

Provision of new prosthesis and occupational therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Action Research Arm Test, box and block test of manual dexterity, Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test, and speed and accuracy of reaching movements with and without visual guidance.

RESULTS

In this experienced prosthesis user, provision of a new prosthesis led to an immediate worsening in functional limitation. With training, the subject recovered his baseline status and then exceeded it in both proximal and distal function. All study clinical measures detected change, but the change detected varied as much as 300-fold depending on the measure chosen. The clinical improvements were associated with modest improvements in the speed of reaching but not the accuracy of reaching under visual guidance. Improvements in reaching accuracy without visual guidance were seen after 10 trials, suggesting that some motor learning had occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of a new prosthesis can cause functional decline even in an experienced user; this decline can be reversed with training. There is wide variability in sensitivity to change among functional limitation measures. Although some training-related improvements may have been due to increased speed and accuracy of reaching without visual guidance, skill in prosthesis use also plays a role.