Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of advancements in upper-limb prosthesis technology on the user through biomechanical analyses at the joint level to quantitatively examine movement differences of individuals using an advanced upper-limb device, the DEKA Arm, and a conventional device, a body-powere...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bloomer, Conor, Kontson, Kimberly L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7853360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33543084
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arrct.2020.100057
_version_ 1783645945149259776
author Bloomer, Conor
Kontson, Kimberly L.
author_facet Bloomer, Conor
Kontson, Kimberly L.
author_sort Bloomer, Conor
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of advancements in upper-limb prosthesis technology on the user through biomechanical analyses at the joint level to quantitatively examine movement differences of individuals using an advanced upper-limb device, the DEKA Arm, and a conventional device, a body-powered Hosmer hook. DESIGN: Clinical measurement. SETTING: Laboratories at the United States Food and Drug Administration. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of participants (N=14) with no upper limb disability or impairment. INTERVENTIONS: All participants were trained on either an upper limb body-powered (n=6) or DEKA Arm (n=8) bypass device. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test (JHFT) and targeted Box and Blocks Test within a motion capture framework. Task completion times and joint angle trajectories for each degree of freedom of the right elbow, right shoulder, and torso were collected and analyzed for range of motion, mean angle, maximum angle, and angle path length during each task. RESULTS: Significant differences between devices were observed across metrics in at least one task for each degree of freedom. Completion times were significantly higher for DEKA users (eg, 30.51±19.29s vs 9.30±1.44s) for JHFT–simulated feeding. Some kinematic measures, such as angle path length, were significantly lower in DEKA users, with the greatest difference in the right elbow flexion path length during JHFT–Page Turning (0.29±0.14 units vs 0.11±0.04 units). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this work elucidate the effect of the device on the user’s movement approach and performance, as well as emphasizing the importance of capturing movement quality into the assessment of function for advanced prosthetic technology to fully understand and evaluate potential benefits.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7853360
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78533602021-02-03 Comparison of DEKA Arm and Body-Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis Joint Kinematics Bloomer, Conor Kontson, Kimberly L. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl Original Research OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of advancements in upper-limb prosthesis technology on the user through biomechanical analyses at the joint level to quantitatively examine movement differences of individuals using an advanced upper-limb device, the DEKA Arm, and a conventional device, a body-powered Hosmer hook. DESIGN: Clinical measurement. SETTING: Laboratories at the United States Food and Drug Administration. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of participants (N=14) with no upper limb disability or impairment. INTERVENTIONS: All participants were trained on either an upper limb body-powered (n=6) or DEKA Arm (n=8) bypass device. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test (JHFT) and targeted Box and Blocks Test within a motion capture framework. Task completion times and joint angle trajectories for each degree of freedom of the right elbow, right shoulder, and torso were collected and analyzed for range of motion, mean angle, maximum angle, and angle path length during each task. RESULTS: Significant differences between devices were observed across metrics in at least one task for each degree of freedom. Completion times were significantly higher for DEKA users (eg, 30.51±19.29s vs 9.30±1.44s) for JHFT–simulated feeding. Some kinematic measures, such as angle path length, were significantly lower in DEKA users, with the greatest difference in the right elbow flexion path length during JHFT–Page Turning (0.29±0.14 units vs 0.11±0.04 units). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this work elucidate the effect of the device on the user’s movement approach and performance, as well as emphasizing the importance of capturing movement quality into the assessment of function for advanced prosthetic technology to fully understand and evaluate potential benefits. Elsevier 2020-04-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7853360/ /pubmed/33543084 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arrct.2020.100057 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Research
Bloomer, Conor
Kontson, Kimberly L.
Comparison of DEKA Arm and Body-Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis Joint Kinematics
title Comparison of DEKA Arm and Body-Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis Joint Kinematics
title_full Comparison of DEKA Arm and Body-Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis Joint Kinematics
title_fullStr Comparison of DEKA Arm and Body-Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis Joint Kinematics
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of DEKA Arm and Body-Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis Joint Kinematics
title_short Comparison of DEKA Arm and Body-Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis Joint Kinematics
title_sort comparison of deka arm and body-powered upper limb prosthesis joint kinematics
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7853360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33543084
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arrct.2020.100057
work_keys_str_mv AT bloomerconor comparisonofdekaarmandbodypoweredupperlimbprosthesisjointkinematics
AT kontsonkimberlyl comparisonofdekaarmandbodypoweredupperlimbprosthesisjointkinematics