How do the outcomes of the DEKA Arm compare to conventional prostheses?

Linda J Resnik, Matthew L Borgia, Frantzy Acluche, Jill M Cancio, Gail Latlief, Nicole Sasson, Linda J Resnik, Matthew L Borgia, Frantzy Acluche, Jill M Cancio, Gail Latlief, Nicole Sasson

Abstract

Objectives: Objectives were to 1) compare self-reported function, dexterity, activity performance, quality of life and community integration of the DEKA Arm to conventional prostheses; and 2) examine differences in outcomes by conventional prosthesis type, terminal device type and by DEKA Arm configuration level.

Methods: This was a two-part study; Part A consisted of in-laboratory training. Part B consisted of home use. Study participants were 23 prosthesis users (mean age = 45 ± 16; 87% male) who completed Part A, and 15 (mean age = 45 ± 18; 87% male) who completed Parts A and B. Outcomes including self-report and performance measures, were collected at Baseline using participants' personal prostheses and at the End of Parts A and B. Scores were compared using paired t-tests. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare outcomes for the full sample, and for the sample stratified by device and terminal device type. Analysis of outcomes by configuration level was performed graphically.

Results: At the End of Part A activity performance using the DEKA Arm and conventional prosthesis was equivalent, but slower with the DEKA Arm. After Part B, performance using the DEKA Arm surpassed conventional prosthesis scores, and speed of activity completion was equivalent. Participants reported using the DEKA Arm to perform more activities, had less perceived disability, and less difficulty in activities at the End of A and B as compared to Baseline. No differences were observed in dexterity, prosthetic skill, spontaneity, pain, community integration or quality of life. Comparisons stratified by device type revealed similar patterns. Graphic comparisons revealed variations by configuration level.

Conclusion: Participants using the DEKA Arm had less perceived disability and more engagement of the prosthesis in everyday tasks, although activity performance was slower. After home use experience, activity performance was improved and activity speed equivalent to using conventional prostheses.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Performance-based measures at Baseline compared…
Fig 1. Performance-based measures at Baseline compared to End of A and End of B by configuration level.
Fig 2. Self-report measures at Baseline compared…
Fig 2. Self-report measures at Baseline compared to End of A and End of B by configuration level.

References

    1. Resnik L., Klinger S., Etter K The DEKA Arm: its features, functionality, and evolution during the Veterans Affairs Study to optimize the DEKA Arm. Prosthet Orthot Int, 2014. 38(6): p. 492–504. doi:
    1. Mobius Bionics: Luke Arm. 2017; Available from: .
    1. Phillips S, Resnik L, Fantini C, Latlief G. Endpoint Control for a Powered Shoulder Prosthesis. Journal of Posthetics & Othotics. 2013;25(4):8.
    1. Resnik L, Klinger S, Etter K, Fantini C. Controlling a multi-degree of freedom upper limb prosthesis using foot controls: user experience. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. July 31 2013.
    1. Resnik L, Borgia M, Latlief G, Sasson N, Smurr-Walters L. Self-reported and performance-based outcomes using DEKA Arm. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2014. 51(3): p. 351–62. doi:
    1. Jebsen R, Taylor N, Trieschmann R, Trotter M, Howard L. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. June 1969;50(6):311–319.
    1. Resnik L. Borgia M. Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error. Phys Ther, 2011. 91(4): p. 555–65. doi:
    1. Resnik L., Adams L., Borgia M., Delikat J., Disla R., Ebner C., Walters L. S. Development and Evaluation of the Activities Measure for Upper Limb Amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2012.
    1. Sanderson E., Scott R, UNB Test of Prosthetics Function: A Test for Unilateral Upper Extremity Amputees, Ages 2–13. 1985, University of New Brunswick: Fredericton.
    1. Burger H, Franchignoni F, Heinemann A, 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): p. 393–9. doi:
    1. Resnik L., Borgia M.,Acluche F. Timed activity performance in persons with upper limb amputation: A preliminary study. J Hand Ther, 2017.
    1. Resnik L,. Borgia M, Acluche F., Brief activity performance measure for upper limb amputees: BAM-ULA. Prosthet Orthot Int, 2017: p. 309364616684196.
    1. Resnik L. Borgia M Reliability, Validity and Responsiveness of the QuickDASH in Patients with Upper Limb Amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2015.
    1. Heinemann A. Bode R, O'Reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthet Orthot Int, 2003. 27(3): p. 191–206. doi:
    1. Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J, Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiotherapy Canada, 1995. 47(4): p. 258–263.
    1. Wong D. a, Baker C., Smiling faces as anchor for pain intensity scales. Pain, 2001. 89(2–3): p. 295–300.
    1. Burckhardt C. and Anderson K The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS): reliability, validity, and utilization. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2003. 1: p. 60 doi:
    1. Resnik L., Plow M, Jette A Development of CRIS: measure of community reintegration of injured service members. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2009. 46(4): p. 469–80.
    1. Desmond D,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): p. 506–13.
    1. Rider B. Linden C Comparison of standardized and non-standardized administration of the Jebsen Hand Function Test. Journal of Hand Therapy, 1988. 2: p. 121–123.
    1. Resnik L. Borgia M. Reliability and Validity of Outcome Measures for Upper Limb Amputation. JPO: Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 2012. 24(4): p. 192–212
    1. Resnik L, M. Borgia M. Responsiveness of outcome measures for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int, 2014.
    1. Resnik L, Baxter K, Borgia M, Mathewson K, Is the UNB test reliable and valid for use with adults with upper limb amputation? J Hand Ther, 2013. 26(4): p. 353–9; quiz 359. doi:
    1. Rossier P., Wade D, Murphy M. An initial investigation of the reliability of the Rivermead Extended ADL index in patients presenting with neurological impairment. J Rehabil Med, 2001. 33(2): p. 61–70.
    1. Beaton D, Wright J,Katz J. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2005. 87(5): p. 1038–46. doi:
    1. Resnik L, Borgia M, Silver B, Cancio J., Systematic Review of Measures of Impairment and Activity Limitation for Person with Upper Limb Trauma and Amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2017.
    1. Resnik L. and Borgia M Responsiveness of outcome measures for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int, 2016. 40(1): p. 96–108. doi:
    1. Chatman A, Hyams S, Neel J, Binkley J., Stratford P., Schomberg A., et al., The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Phys Ther. Aug 1997;77(8):820–829.
    1. Stuppy D., The Faces Pain Scale: reliability and validity with mature adults. Appl Nurs Res, 1998. 11(2): p. 84–9.
    1. Burckhardt C, Woods SL, Schultz A, Ziebarth D. Quality of life of adults with chronic illness: a psychometric study. Res Nurs Health. December 1989;12(6):347–354., Quality of life of adults with chronic illness: a psychometric study. Res Nurs Health, 1989. 12(6): p. 347–54.
    1. Resnik L., The CRIS: Measure of Community Reintegration of Service Members. 2010.
    1. Resnik L, Borgia M, Ni P, Pirraglia P, Jette A, Reliability, validity and administrative burden of the community reintegration of injured service members computer adaptive test (CRIS-CAT)". BMC Med Res Methodol, 2012. 12(1): p. 145.
    1. Resnik L, Feng T, Pensheng N, Jette A, A Computer Adaptive Test to Measure Community Reintegration of Veterans. JRRD, 2012. 49 (4): p. 557–566.
    1. Gallagher P., Maclachlan M. The Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales and quality of life in people with lower-limb amputation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2004. 85(5): p. 730–736.
    1. Gallagher P. MacLachlan M. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES). Rehabilitation Psychology, 2000. 45(2): p. 130–54.
    1. Resnik L., Acluche F., Borgia M. Function, quality of life and community integration of DEKA ARM users after discharge from prosthetic training. Under Review, 2017.
    1. Resnik L. Borgia M. User ratings of prosthetic usability and satisfaction in VA study to optimize DEKA arm. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2014. 51(1): p. 15–26. doi:
    1. Resnik, L. VA study to optimize the Gen 2 Deka Arm: qualitative findings. in Myoelectric Symposium. 2011.
    1. Resnik L, Latlief G, Klinger L, Sasson N, Walters L, Do users want to receive a DEKA Arm and why? Overall findings from the Veterans Affairs Study to optimize the DEKA Arm. Prosthet Orthot Int, 2014. 38(6): p. 456–66. doi:
    1. Resnik L., Fcluche F.,Borgia M., Does the DEKA Arm supplement or substitute for a conventional prosthesis? Under Review, 2017.
    1. R Resnik L, Acluche F, Borgia M, Cancio J, Latlief G, Sasson N., Is function of upper limb prostheses users maintained, improved, or diminished after discharge from prosthetics Training? Findings from the VA Study of the DEKA Arm. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, In Press.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj