Literature DB >> 6860093

Functional comparison of upper extremity amputees using myoelectric and conventional prostheses.

R B Stein, M Walley.   

Abstract

Upper extremity amputees were tested on a standardized series of tasks using a myoelectric hand, a conventional prosthesis (cable-controlled hook), and their normal hand (unilateral amputees only). They answered also a questionnaire on activities of daily living (ADL) and provided other prosthetic information. Amputees who had been fitted only with a conventional prosthesis, and used their prosthesis regularly, tended to wear the prosthesis more hours per day (14 hours) than amputees fitted with a myoelectric hand (9.6 hours), some of whom continued to use a conventional prosthesis for some jobs. However, the amputees with myoelectric prostheses had a greater functional range of motion (ROM) than those with a conventional prosthesis, and many regular wearers of a myoelectric prosthesis had long since rejected a conventional prosthesis. Amputees took about 2.5 times as long to complete the tasks tested with a conventional prosthesis and about five times as long with a myoelectric prosthesis than with their normal hand. Despite the slower function, more than 60% of below-elbow (B-E) amputees accepted the myoelectric prosthesis in preference to a conventional prosthesis, which they had all been fitted with previously. Others preferred to continue using a conventional prosthesis to which they had become accustomed (13%) or no prosthesis (26%). The combination of function, ROM, and cosmetic appearance of a myoelectric prosthesis is preferred by most B-E amputees, despite its slower performance at the present time.

Mesh:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6860093

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  5 in total

1.  A survey on activities of daily living and occupations of upper extremity amputees.

Authors:  Chul Ho Jang; Hee Seung Yang; Hea Eun Yang; Seon Yeong Lee; Ji Won Kwon; Bong Duck Yun; Jae Yung Choi; Seon Nyeo Kim; Hae Won Jeong
Journal:  Ann Rehabil Med       Date:  2011-12-30

Review 2.  Neural interfaces for somatosensory feedback: bringing life to a prosthesis.

Authors:  Dustin J Tyler
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 5.710

3.  Reassessing myoelectric control: is it time to look at alternatives?

Authors:  R E Lee
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1987-03-01       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Fabrication of the Composite Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface (C-RPNI) in the Adult Rat.

Authors:  Shelby R Svientek; Dan C Ursu; Paul S Cederna; Stephen W P Kemp
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 1.355

5.  Comparison of DEKA Arm and Body-Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis Joint Kinematics.

Authors:  Conor Bloomer; Kimberly L Kontson
Journal:  Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl       Date:  2020-04-25
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.