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

Overview

Journal Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl

Date 2021 Feb 5

PMID 33543084

Citations 5

Authors

Conor Bloomer

Kimberly L Kontson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Restoring natural upper limb movement through a wrist prosthetic module for partial hand amputees.

Choi S, Cho W, Kim K J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2023; 20(1):135.

PMID: 37798778 PMC: 10552222. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-023-01259-9.

Comparison of Motion Analysis Systems in Tracking Upper Body Movement of Myoelectric Bypass Prosthesis Users.

Wang S, Civillico G, Niswander W, Kontson K Sensors (Basel). 2022; 22(8).

PMID: 35458943 PMC: 9029489. DOI: 10.3390/s22082953.

Factors influencing perceived function in the upper limb prosthesis user population.

Zhang X, Baun K, Trent L, Miguelez J, Kontson K PM R. 2021; 15(1):69-79.

PMID: 34409777 PMC: 10078776. DOI: 10.1002/pmrj.12697.

Myoelectric prosthesis users and non-disabled individuals wearing a simulated prosthesis exhibit similar compensatory movement strategies.

Williams H, Chapman C, Pilarski P, Vette A, Hebert J J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021; 18(1):72.

PMID: 33933105 PMC: 8088043. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-021-00855-x.

Application of machine learning to the identification of joint degrees of freedom involved in abnormal movement during upper limb prosthesis use.

Wang S, Bloomer C, Civillico G, Kontson K PLoS One. 2021; 16(2):e0246795.

PMID: 33571311 PMC: 7877744. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246795.

References

Wilson A, Blustein D, Sensinger J . A third arm - Design of a bypass prosthesis enabling incorporation. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2017; 2017:1381-1386. DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2017.8009441. View

Metzger A, Dromerick A, Holley R, Lum P . Characterization of compensatory trunk movements during prosthetic upper limb reaching tasks. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93(11):2029-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.03.011. View

Kontson K, Marcus I, Myklebust B, Civillico E . Targeted box and blocks test: Normative data and comparison to standard tests. PLoS One. 2017; 12(5):e0177965. PMC: 5438168. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177965. View

Stein R, Walley M . Functional comparison of upper extremity amputees using myoelectric and conventional prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1983; 64(6):243-8. View

Resnik L, Borgia M, Acluche F, Cancio J, Latlief G, Sasson N . How do the outcomes of the DEKA Arm compare to conventional prostheses?. PLoS One. 2018; 13(1):e0191326. PMC: 5771605. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191326. View

Weeks D, Wallace S, Anderson D . Training with an upper-limb prosthetic simulator to enhance transfer of skill across limbs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84(3):437-43. DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2003.50014. View

OLDFIELD R . The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971; 9(1):97-113. DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4. View

Kontson K, Marcus I, Myklebust B, Civillico E . An Integrated Movement Analysis Framework to Study Upper Limb Function: A Pilot Study. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017; 25(10):1874-1883. DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2017.2693234. View

Saradjian A, Thompson A, Datta D . The experience of men using an upper limb prosthesis following amputation: positive coping and minimizing feeling different. Disabil Rehabil. 2007; 30(11):871-83. DOI: 10.1080/09638280701427386. View

10.

Resnik L, Borgia M, Acluche F . Perceptions of satisfaction, usability and desirability of the DEKA Arm before and after a trial of home use. PLoS One. 2017; 12(6):e0178640. PMC: 5456350. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178640. View

11.

Ostlie K, Lesjo I, Franklin R, Garfelt B, Skjeldal O, Magnus P . Prosthesis use in adult acquired major upper-limb amputees: patterns of wear, prosthetic skills and the actual use of prostheses in activities of daily life. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012; 7(6):479-93. DOI: 10.3109/17483107.2011.653296. View

12.

Major M, Stine R, Heckathorne C, Fatone S, Gard S . 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. PMC: 4164738. DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-132. View

13.

Cowley J, Resnik L, Wilken J, Walters L, Gates D . Movement quality of conventional prostheses and the DEKA Arm during everyday tasks. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016; 41(1):33-40. PMC: 5511738. DOI: 10.1177/0309364616631348. View

14.

Bloomer C, Wang S, Kontson K . Creating a standardized, quantitative training protocol for upper limb bypass prostheses. Phys Med Rehabil Res. 2019; 3(6):1-8. PMC: 6547834. View

15.

JEBSEN R, Taylor N, Trieschmann R, Trotter M, Howard L . An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969; 50(6):311-9. View

16.

Wang S, Hsu C, Trent L, Ryan T, Kearns N, Civillico E . Evaluation of Performance-Based Outcome Measures for the Upper Limb: A Comprehensive Narrative Review. PM R. 2018; 10(9):951-962.e3. PMC: 6206495. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.02.008. View

17.

Bouwsema H, Van der Sluis C, Bongers R . Changes in performance over time while learning to use a myoelectric prosthesis. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014; 11:16. PMC: 3944783. DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-16. View

18.

Trent L, Intintoli M, Prigge P, Bollinger C, Walters L, Conyers D . A narrative review: current upper limb prosthetic options and design. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019; 15(6):604-613. DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2019.1594403. View

19.

Cupo M, Sheredos S . Clinical evaluation of a new, above-elbow, body-powered prosthetic arm: a final report. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999; 35(4):431-46. View

20.

Schwarz A, Kanzler C, Lambercy O, Luft A, Veerbeek J . Systematic Review on Kinematic Assessments of Upper Limb Movements After Stroke. Stroke. 2019; 50(3):718-727. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023531. View