Flexible and static wrist units in upper limb prosthesis users: functionality scores, user satisfaction and compensatory movements

M Deijs, R M Bongers, N D M Ringeling-van Leusen, C K van der Sluis, M Deijs, R M Bongers, N D M Ringeling-van Leusen, C K van der Sluis

Abstract

Background: The current study examines the relevance of prosthetic wrist movement to facilitate activities of daily living or to prevent overuse complaints. Prosthesis hands with wrist flexion/extension capabilities are commercially available, but research on the users' experiences with flexible wrists is limited.

Methods: In this study, eight transradial amputees using a myoelectric prosthesis tested two prosthesis wrists with flexion/extension capabilities, the Flex-wrist (Otto Bock) and Multi-flex wrist (Motion Control), in their flexible and static conditions. Differences between the wrists were assessed on the levels of functionality, user satisfaction and compensatory movements after two weeks use.

Results: No significant differences between flexible and static wrist conditions were found on activity performance tests and standardized questionnaires on satisfaction. Inter-individual variation was remarkably large. Participants' satisfaction tended to be in favour of flexible wrists. All participants but one indicated that they would choose a prosthesis hand with wrist flexion/extension capabilities if allowed a new prosthesis. Shoulder joint angles, reflecting compensatory movements, showed no clear differences between wrist conditions.

Conclusions: Overall, positive effects of flexible wrists are hard to objectify. Users seem to be more satisfied with flexible wrists. A person's needs, work and prosthesis skills should be taken into account when prescribing a prosthesis wrist.

Trial registration: Nederlands Trial Register NTR3984 .

Keywords: Compensatory movements; Functionality; Prosthetic limbs; User satisfaction; Wrist.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Mean maximum angle of rotation of the shoulder (degrees) for individual participants in different wrist conditions during ADL tasks with small (‘lifting object’, top) and large (‘handling cutlery’, bottom) inter-individual variation

References

    1. Peerdeman B, Boere D, Witteveen H, in 't Veld RH, Hermens H, Stramigioli S, et al. Myoelectric forearm prostheses: state of the art from a user-centered perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):719–37. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2010.08.0161.
    1. Biddiss E, Beaton D, Chau T. Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;2(6):346–57.
    1. Atkins DJH, Heard DCY, Donovan WH. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet. Orthot. 1996;8(1):2–11. doi: 10.1097/00008526-199600810-00003.
    1. Kyberd PJ. The influence of passive wrist joints on the functionality of prosthetic hands. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012;36(1):33–8. doi: 10.1177/0309364611426905.
    1. Bertels T, Schmalz T, Ludwigs E. Objectifying the functional advantages of prosthetic wrist flexion. J Prosthet. Orthot. 2009;21(2):74–8. doi: 10.1097/JPO.0b013e3181a10f46.
    1. MacPhee BJ. Examining the prosthetic function and body behavior of prosthesis users performing activities of daily living. 2007.
    1. Carey SL, Jason Highsmith M, Maitland ME, Dubey RV. Compensatory movements of transradial prosthesis users during common tasks. Clin. Biomech. 2008;23(9):1128–35. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.05.008.
    1. Zinck AL. Investigation of compensatory movements in prosthesis users and the design of a novel wrist. 2008.
    1. Carey SL, Dubey RV, Bauer GS, Highsmith MJ. Kinematic comparison of myoelectric and body powered prostheses while performing common activities. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2009;33:179–186. doi: 10.1080/03093640802613229.
    1. Metzger AJ, Dromerick AW, Holley RJ, Lum PS. Characterization of compensatory trunk movements during prosthetic upper limb reaching tasks. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:2029–2034. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.03.011.
    1. Major MJ, Stine RL, Heckathorne CW, Fatone S, Grard SA. Comparison of range-of-motion and variability in upper body movements between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:132. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-132.
    1. Ostlie K, Franklin RJ, Skjeldal OH, Skrondal A, Magnus P. Musculoskeletal pain and overuse syndromes in adult acquired major upper-limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(12):1967–73. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.06.026.
    1. Davidson J. A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles, and their abilities. J Hand Ther. 2002;15(1):62–70. doi: 10.1053/hanthe.2002.v15.01562.
    1. Petersen B. Preliminary feedback from field trial users of the Motion Control Multi-flex wrist, Proceedings 2008 Myoelectric controls/Powered prosthetics symposium. Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada; 2008.
    1. Metcalf CD, Woodward H, Wright V, Chappell PH, Burridge JH, Yule VT. Changes in hand function with age and normative unimpaired scores when measured with the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure. Br J Hand Ther. 2008;13(3):79–83.
    1. Light CM, Chappell PH, Kyberd PJ. Establishing a standardized clinical assessment tool of pathologic and prosthetic hand function: normative data, reliability, and validity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(6):776–83. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.32737.
    1. Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, Weber K. Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 1985;39(6):386–91. doi: 10.5014/ajot.39.6.386.
    1. Burger H, Franchignoni F, Heinemann AW, Kotnik S, Giordano A. Validation of the orthotics and prosthetics user survey upper extremity functional status module in people with unilateral upper limb amputation. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(5):393–9. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0183.
    1. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST) Assist Technol. 1996;8(1):3–13. doi: 10.1080/10400435.1996.10132268.
    1. Wessels RD, De Witte LP. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(6):267–72. doi: 10.1080/0963828021000031197.
    1. Desmond DM, MacLachlan M. Factor structure of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES) with individuals with acquired upper limb amputations. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2005;84(7):506–13. doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000166885.16180.63.
    1. De Vries WH, Veeger HE, Cutti AG, Baten C, van der Helm FC. Functionally interpretable local coordinate systems for the upper extremity using inertial & magnetic measurement systems. J Biomech. 2010;43(10):1983–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.03.007.
    1. Wu G, van der Helm FC, Veeger HE, Makhsous M, Van Roy P, Anglin C, et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech. 2005;38(5):981–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.05.042.
    1. Woltring HJ. 3-D attitude representation of human joints: a standardization proposal. J Biomech. 1994;27(12):1399–414. doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(94)90191-0.
    1. Vasluian E, Bongers RM, Reinders-Messelink HA, Burgerhof JG, Dijkstra PU, van der Sluis CK. Learning effects of repetitive administration of the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure in novice prosthetic users. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(8):788–97. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1827.
    1. Hermansson LM, Fisher AG, Bernspang B, Eliasson AC. Assessment of capacity for myoelectric control: a new Rasch-built measure of prosthetic hand control. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37(3):166–71.
    1. Hill W, Kyberd PJ, Norling Hermansson L, Hubbard S, Stavdahl O, Swanson S. Upper limb prosthetic outcome measures (ULPOM): a working group and their findings. J Prosthet. Orthot. 2009;21(4S):69–82. doi: 10.1097/JPO.0b013e3181ae970b.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel