Effect of multi-grip myoelectric prosthetic hands on daily activities, pain-related disability and prosthesis use compared with single-grip myoelectric prostheses: A single-case study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v53.807Keywords:
amputation; limb loss, artificial limbs, activities of daily living, pain-related disability, linear models, patient satisfactionAbstract
Objective: To evaluate the effect of multi-grip myoelectric prosthetic hands on performance of daily activities, pain-related disability and prosthesis use, in comparison with single-grip myoelectric prosthetic hands.
Design: Single-case AB design.
Patients: Nine adults with upper-limb loss participated in the study. All had previous experience of single-grip myoelectric prostheses and were prescribed a prosthesis with multi-grip functions.
Methods: To assess the changes in daily activities, pain-related disability and prosthesis use between single-grip and multi-grip myoelectric prosthetic hands, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Pain Disability Index, and prosthesis wearing time were measured at multiple time-points. Visual assessment of graphs and multi-level linear regression were used to assess changes in the outcome measures.
Results: At 6 months’ follow-up self-perceived performance and satisfaction scores had increased, prosthesis wearing time had increased, and pain-related disability had reduced in participants with musculoskeletal pain at baseline. On average, 8 of the 11 available grip types were used. Most useful were the power grip, tripod pinch and lateral pinch.
Conclusion: The multi-grip myoelectric prosthetic hand has favourable effects on performance of, and satisfaction with, individually chosen activities, prostheses use and pain-related disability. A durable single-grip myoelectric prosthetic hand may still be needed for heavier physical activities. With structured training, a standard 2-site electrode control system can be used to operate a multi-grip myoelectric prosthetic hand.
Lay Abstract
Individuals with upper limb loss are often offered prosthetic hands during the rehabilitation process, to restore body balance and compensate for lack of grip ability. Prosthetic hands with multiple grip functions have been developed to facilitate fine motor skills and enable an ergonomic movement pattern. However, the impact of these hands on the users’ daily life has been sparsely studied, and the results have been inconsistent. This study evaluates the effect of multi-grip hands on the performance of daily activities, pain-related disability and prosthesis use, compared to single-grip hands. Based on our results, a multi-grip hand was more useful than a single-grip model for performance of specific, individually chosen activities. Further, prosthesis use increased and pain-related disability was reduced by the use of a multi-grip hand. Multi-grip prosthetic hands seem to fill a gap in prosthetic rehabilitation and facilitate activity performance, and are something clinicians can recommend to their patients.
Downloads
References
Cancio JM, Ikeda AJ, Barnicott SL, Childers WL, Alderete JF, Goff BJ. Upper extremity amputation and prosthetics care across the active duty military and veteran populations. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2019; 30: 73–87.
Widehammar C, Pettersson I, Janeslätt G, et al. The influence of environment: Experiences of users of myoelectric arm prosthesis – a qualitative study. Prosthet Orthot Int 2017; 42: 28–36.
Resnik L, Huang HH, Winslow A, et al. Evaluation of EMG pattern recognition for upper limb prosthesis control: a case study in comparison with direct myoelectric control. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2018; 15: 23.
Reed D. Understanding and meeting the needs of farmers with amputations. Orthop Nurs 2004; 23: 397–402, 404–395.
Datta D, Selvarajah K, Davey N. Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency – acquired and congenital. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 172–177.
Postema SG, Bongers RM, Brouwers MA, et al. Musculoskeletal complaints in transverse upper limb reduction deficiency and amputation in the Netherlands: prevalence, predictors, and effect on health. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2016; 97: 1137–1145.
Resnik L, Ekerholm S, Borgia M, et al. A national study of Veterans with major upper limb amputation: survey methods, participants, and summary findings. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0213578. 2019/03/15.
Jones L, Davidson J. Save that arm: a study of problems in the remaining arm of unilateral upper limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1999; 23: 55–58.
Hanley MA, Ehde DM, Jensen M, et al. Chronic pain associated with upper-limb loss. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 88: 742.
Østlie K, Franklin RJ, Skjeldal OH, et al. Musculoskeletal pain and overuse syndromes in adult acquired major upper-limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 92: 1967–1973. e1961.
Gambrell CR. Overuse syndrome and the unilateral upper limb amputee: consequences and prevention. J Prosthet Orthot 2008; 20: 126–132.
Pröbsting E, Kannenberg A, Conyers DW, et al. Ease of activities of daily living with conventional and multigrip myoelectric hands. J Prosthet Orthot 2015; 27: 46–52.
Popovic I, Cutti A, Ryan T, et al. Do multi-grip hands increase function and patient satisfaction when compared to traditional myoelectric hands? Canadian Prosthet Orthot J 2018; 1.
Luchetti M, Verni G, Sacchetti R, et al. Impact of Michelangelo prosthetic hand: Findings from a crossover longitudinal study. J Rehabil Res Dev 2015; 52: 605.
Van Der Niet Otr O, Reinders-Messelink HA, Bongers RM, et al. The i-LIMB hand and the DMC plus hand compared: a case report. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010; 34: 216–220.
Kyberd P. Assessment of functionality of multifunction prosthetic hands. J Prosthet Orthot 2017; 29: 103–111.
Loiret I, Sanamane V, Touillet A, et al. Assessment of multigrip prosthetic hand by a crossover longitudinal study. Ann Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 60: e34.
Van Der Niet O, Bongers RM, Van Der Sluis CK. Functionality of i-LIMB and i-LIMB Pulse hands: Case report. J Rehabil Res Dev 2013; 50.
Kerver N, van Twillert S, Maas B, et al. User-relevant factors determining prosthesis choice in persons with major unilateral upper limb defects: a meta-synthesis of qualitative literature and focus group results. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0234342.
Franzke AW, Kristoffersen MB, Bongers RM, et al. Users’ and therapists’ perceptions of myoelectric multi-function upper limb prostheses with conventional and pattern recognition control. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0220899.
Resnik LJ, Acluche F, Lieberman Klinger S. User experience of controlling the DEKA Arm with EMG pattern recognition. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0203987.
Resnik L, Meucci MR, Lieberman-Klinger S, et al. Advanced upper limb prosthetic devices: implications for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93: 710–717.
Roche AD, Vujaklija I, Amsuss S, et al. A Structured rehabilitation protocol for improved multifunctional prosthetic control: a case study. J Vis Exp 2015: e52968.
Johnson SS and Mansfield E. Prosthetic training: upper limb. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2014; 25: 133–151.
Lane JD, Gast DL. Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2014; 24: 445–463.
Dallery J, Cassidy RN, Raiff BR. Single-case experimental designs to evaluate novel technology-based health interventions. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15: e22.
Law M, Baptiste S, McColl M, et al. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther 1990; 57: 82–87.
Wressle E, Samuelsson K, Henriksson C. Responsiveness of the Swedish version of the Canadian occupational performance measure. Scand J Occup Ther 1999; 6: 84–89.
Tait RC, Pollard CA, Margolis RB, et al. The Pain Disability Index: psychometric and validity data. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1987; 68: 438–441.
Lindner HY, Langius-Eklöf A, Hermansson L M. Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of the Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014; 51: 635–44.
Lindner HY, Linacre JM, Norling Hermansson LM. Assessment of capacity for myoelectric control: Evaluation of construct and rating scale. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 467–474.
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: 776–783.
Widehammar C. Results study IV – the training method STAIR, page 53–56; In: Benefits and use of myoelectric arm prostheses: outcomes, influencing factors and experiences. Doctoral dissertation. Örebro: Örebro University; 2021. Available from: http://oru.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1539440/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
Lobo MA, Moeyaert M, Cunha AB, et al. Single-case design, analysis, and quality assessment for intervention research. J Neurol Phys Ther 2017; 41: 187.
Baek EK, Moeyaert M, Petit-Bois M, et al. The use of multilevel analysis for integrating single-case experimental design results within a study and across studies. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2014; 24: 590–606.
McNeish D. Small sample methods for multilevel modeling: a colloquial elucidation of REML and the Kenward-Roger correction. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2017; 52: 661–670.
Mastinu E, Ahlberg J, Lendaro E, et al. An alternative myoelectric pattern recognition approach for the control of hand prostheses: a case study of use in daily life by a dysmelia subject. IEEE J Translat Eng Health Med 2018; 6: 1–12.
Vergara M, Sancho-Bru JL, Gracia-Ibáñez V, et al. An introductory study of common grasps used by adults during performance of activities of daily living. J Hand Ther 2014; 27: 225–234.
Wang S, Hsu CJ, Trent L, et al. Evaluation of performance-based outcome measures for the upper limb: a comprehensive narrative review. Phys Med Rehabil 2018; 10: 951–962. e953.
Vasluian E, Bongers RM, Reinders-Messelink HA, et al. Learning effects of repetitive administration of the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure in novice prosthetic users. J Rehabil Med 2014; 46: 788–797.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Cathrine Widehammar, Ayako Hiyoshi, Kajsa Lidström Holmqvist, Helen Lindner, Liselotte Hermansson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All digitalized JRM contents is available freely online. The Foundation for Rehabilitation Medicine owns the copyright for all material published until volume 40 (2008), as from volume 41 (2009) authors retain copyright to their work and as from volume 49 (2017) the journal has been published Open Access, under CC-BY-NC licences (unless otherwise specified). The CC-BY-NC licenses allow third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
From 2024, articles are published under the CC-BY licence. This license permits sharing, adapting, and using the material for any purpose, including commercial use, with the condition of providing full attribution to the original publication.
