Advertisement

A comparison of compensatory movements between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users during activities of daily living

  • Author Footnotes
    1 Present address: American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association, Alexandria, VA, USA.
    Susannah M. Engdahl
    Footnotes
    1 Present address: American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association, Alexandria, VA, USA.
    Affiliations
    Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Christina Lee
    Affiliations
    Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Deanna H. Gates
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author at: University of Michigan, 830 N University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
    Affiliations
    Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    1 Present address: American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association, Alexandria, VA, USA.

      Highlights

      • Compensatory motions were compared for body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users.
      • Differences in compensatory motions may occur due to prosthesis actuation method.
      • Compensatory motions were defined by altered range of motion of the intact joints.
      • Prosthesis type did not have a consistent effect on compensatory movements.

      Abstract

      Background

      People with upper limb absence use compensatory movements to accommodate lack of motion in the prosthetic hand. The purpose of this study was to determine if the type of prosthesis used (i.e. body-powered or myoelectric) affects compensatory movements during activities of daily living.

      Methods

      Twelve transradial body-powered and/or myoelectric prosthesis users performed up to six unimanual and bimanual activities of daily living. Trunk range of motion and peak upper limb angles for each task were compared between prostheses.

      Findings

      Compensatory movement generally did not differ based on prosthesis type. However, body-powered users had increased trunk lateral lean compared to myoelectric users during a deodorant application task (P = 0.025). Body-powered users also had increased trunk axial rotation (P = 0.048) and decreased shoulder elevation (P = 0.046) when transferring a box between shelves. Compensatory movements were not systematically correlated with duration of prosthesis ownership, socket comfort, or terminal device type.

      Interpretation

      A prosthesis user's compensatory movements may depend on other factors beyond whether the prosthesis terminal device is actuated through body-powered or myoelectric mechanisms. Further exploration of the factors that influence joint kinematics in prosthesis users may inform future prosthesis prescription practices and help patients become successful users.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Biomechanics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Barnett S.D.
        • Heinemann A.W.
        • Libin A.
        • Houts A.C.
        • Gassaway J.
        • Sen-Gupta S.
        • Resch A.
        • Brossart D.F.
        Small N designs for rehabilitation research.
        J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2012; 49: 175-186
        • Belter J.T.
        • Segil J.L.
        • Dollar A.M.
        • Weir R.F.
        Mechanical design and performance specifications of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: a review.
        J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2013; 50
        • Berning K.
        • Cohick S.
        • Johnson R.
        • Miller L.A.
        • Sensinger J.W.
        Comparison of body-powered voluntary opening and voluntary closing prehensor for activities of daily life.
        J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2014; 51
        • Carey S.L.
        • Jason Highsmith M.
        • Maitland M.E.
        • Dubey R.V.
        Compensatory movements of transradial prosthesis users during common tasks.
        Clin. Biomech. 2008; 23: 1128-1135
        • Carey S.L.
        • Dubey R.V.
        • Bauer G.S.
        • Highsmith M.J.
        Kinematic comparison of myoelectric and body powered prostheses while performing common activities.
        Prosthetics Orthot. Int. 2009; 33: 179-186
        • Carey S.L.
        • Lura D.J.
        • Highsmith M.J.
        Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: systematic literature review.
        J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2015; 52: 247-262
        • Carey S.L.
        • Stevens P.M.
        • Highsmith M.J.
        Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: systematic literature review update 2013–2016.
        J. Prosthet. Orthot. 2017; 29: P17-P20
        • Chadwell A.
        • Kenney L.
        • Granat M.H.
        • Thies S.
        • Head J.
        • Galpin A.
        • Baker R.
        • Kulkarni J.
        Upper limb activity in myoelectric prosthesis users is biased towards the intact limb and appears unrelated to goal-directed task performance.
        Sci. Rep. 2018; 8: 11084
        • Chadwell A.
        • Kenney L.
        • Howard D.
        • Ssekitoleko R.T.
        • Nakandi B.T.
        • Head J.
        Evaluating reachable workspace and user control over prehensor aperture for a body-powered prosthesis.
        IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2020; 28: 2005-2014
        • Cohen J.
        Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
        Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ1988
        • Cowley J.C.
        • Gates D.H.
        Inter-joint coordination changes during and after muscle fatigue.
        Hum. Mov. Sci. 2017; 56: 109-118
        • Cowley J.
        • Resnik L.
        • Wilken J.
        • Smurr Walters L.
        • Gates D.
        Movement quality of conventional prostheses and the DEKA arm during everyday tasks.
        Prosthetics Orthot. Int. 2017; 41: 33-40
        • Datta D.
        • Selvarajah S.
        • Davey N.
        Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency - acquired and congenital.
        Clin. Rehabil. 2004; 18: 172-177
        • Engdahl S.M.
        • Gates D.H.
        Differences in quality of movements made with body-powered and myoelectric prostheses during activities of daily living.
        Clin. Biomech. 2021; 84105311
        • Engdahl S.M.
        • Meehan S.K.
        • Gates D.H.
        Differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users.
        Sci. Rep. 2020; 10: 1-10
        • Gates D.H.
        • Walters L.S.
        • Cowley J.
        • Wilken J.M.
        • Resnik L.
        Range of motion requirements for upper-limb activities of daily living.
        Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2016; 70
        • Graham J.E.
        • Karmarkar A.M.
        • Ottenbacher K.J.
        Small sample research designs for evidence-based rehabilitation: issues and methods.
        Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012; 93: S111-S116
        • Hebert J.S.
        • Lewicke J.
        Case report of modified box and blocks test with motion capture to measure prosthetic function.
        J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2012; 49: 1163
        • Hebert J.S.
        • Boser Q.A.
        • Valevicius A.M.
        • Tanikawa H.
        • Lavoie E.B.
        • Vette A.H.
        • Pilarski P.M.
        • Chapman C.S.
        Quantitative eye gaze and movement differences in Visuomotor adaptations to varying task demands among upper-extremity prosthesis users.
        JAMA Netw. Open. 2019; 2: e1911197
        • Hussaini A.
        • Kyberd P.
        Refined clothespin relocation test and assessment of motion.
        Prosthetics Orthot. Int. 2017; 41: 294-302
        • Hussaini A.
        • Zinck A.
        • Kyberd P.
        Categorization of compensatory motions in transradial myoelectric prosthesis users.
        Prosthetics Orthot. Int. 2017; 41: 286-293
        • Jones L.E.
        • Davidson J.H.
        Save that arm: a study of problems in the remaining arm of unilateral upper limb amputees.
        Prosthetics Orthot. Int. 1999; 23: 55-58
        • Major M.J.
        • Stine R.L.
        • Heckathorne C.W.
        • Fatone S.
        • Gard S.A.
        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. Neuro. Eng. Rehabil. 2014; 11
        • Metzger A.J.
        • Dromerick A.W.
        • Holley R.J.
        • Lum P.S.
        Characterization of compensatory trunk movements during prosthetic upper limb reaching tasks.
        Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012; 93: 2029-2034
        • Østlie K.
        • Franklin R.J.
        • Skjedal O.H.
        • Skrondal A.
        • Magnus P.
        Musculoskeletal pain and overuse syndromes in adult acquired Major upper-limb amputees.
        Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2011; 92: 1967-1973
        • Postema S.G.
        • van der Sluis C.K.
        • Waldenlöv K.
        • Norling Hermansson L.M.
        Body structures and physical complaints in upper limb reduction deficiency: a 24-year follow-up study.
        PLoS One. 2012; 7e49727
        • Resnik L.
        • Borgia M.
        • Clark M.A.
        Contralateral limb pain is prevalent, persistent, and impacts quality of life of veterans with unilateral upper limb amputation.
        J. Prosthet. Orthot. 2022;
        • Shirley Ryan Ability Lab
        Orthotics prosthetics user survey.
        in: Rehabilitation Measures Database. 2015 (From)
        • Smail L.C.
        • Neal C.
        • Wilkins C.
        • Packham T.L.
        Comfort and function remain key factors in upper limb prosthetic abandonment: findings of a scoping review.
        Disab. Rehabilit. Assist. Technol. 2020; : 1-10
        • Smit G.
        • Plettenburg D.H.
        Efficiency of voluntary closing hand and hook prostheses.
        Prosthetics Orthot. Int. 2010; 34: 411-427
        • Smit G.
        • Bongers R.M.
        • Van der Sluis C.K.
        • Plettenburg D.H.
        Efficiency of voluntary opening hand and hook prosthetic devices: 24 years of development.
        J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2012; 49: 523-534
        • Spiers A.J.
        • Cochran J.
        • Resnik L.
        • Dollar A.M.
        Quantifying prosthetic and intact limb use in upper limb amputees via egocentric video: an unsupervised, at-home study.
        IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics. 2021; 3: 463-484
        • Stein R.B.
        • Walley M.
        Functional comparison of upper extremity amputees using myoelectric and conventional prostheses.
        Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1983; 64: 243-248
        • Stevens P.M.
        • Highsmith M.J.
        Myoelectric and body power, design options for upper-limb prostheses: introduction to the state of the science conference proceedings.
        J. Prosthet. Orthot. 2017; 29: P1-P3
        • Valevicius A.M.
        • Boser Q.A.
        • Chapman C.S.
        • Pilarski P.M.
        • Vette A.H.
        • Hebert J.S.
        Compensatory strategies of body-powered prosthesis users reveal primary reliance on trunk motion and relation to skill level.
        Clin. Biomech. 2020; 72: 122-129
        • Wang S.L.
        • Bloomer C.
        • Civillico G.
        • Kontson K.
        Application of machine learning to the identification of joint degrees of freedom involved in abnormal movement during upper limb prosthesis use.
        PLoS One. 2021; 16e0246795
        • Wu G.
        • van der Helm F.C.
        • Veeger H.E.
        • Makhsous M.
        • Van Roy P.
        • Anglin C.
        • Nagels J.
        • Karduna A.R.
        • McQuade K.
        • Wang X.
        • Werner F.W.
        • Buchholz B.
        ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand.
        J. Biomech. 2005; 38: 981-992