A narrative review: current upper limb prosthetic options and design

References

• Department of Veteran Affairs, Department of Defense. VA/DoD Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Upper Extremity Amputation Rehabilitation. Washington D.C.; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• ISO/TC 8549-4. Prosthetics and orthotics – vocabulary – part 4: terms relating to limb amputation. International Organization for Standardization. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, et al. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:422–429.
   Google Scholar
• Egermann M, Kasten P, Thomsen M. Myoelectric hand prostheses in very young children. Int Orthop. 2009;33:1101–1105.
   Google Scholar
• Melton D. Physiatrist perspective on upper-limb prosthetic options: using practice guidelines to promote patient education in the selection and the prescription process. J Prosthet Orthot. 2018;12:40–44.
   Google Scholar
• Arazpour M, Mardani MA, Ahmadi Bani M, et al. Design and fabrication of a finger prosthesis based on a new method of suspension. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013;37:332–335.
   Google Scholar
• Arazpour M, Mardani M, Bahramizadeh M, et al. The effect of new method of suspension on quality of life, satisfaction, and suspension in patients with finger prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2015;39:197–203.
   Google Scholar
• Cabibihan J. Patient-specific prosthetic fingers by remote collaboration-a case study. Plos ONE. 2011;6:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Goyal A, Goel H. Prosthetic rehabilitation of a patient with finger amputation using silicone material. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2015;39:333–337.
   Google Scholar
• Imbinto I, Peccia C, Controzzi M, et al. Treatment of the partial hand amputation: an engineering perspective. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2016;9:32–48.
   Google Scholar
• Jacob PC, Shetty KH, Garg A, et al. Silicone finger prosthesis. A clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2012;21:631–633.
   Google Scholar
• Kistenberg RS. Prosthetic choices for people with leg and arm amputations. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014;25:93–115.
   Google Scholar
• Kuret Z, Burger H, Vidmar G, et al. Impact of silicone prosthesis on hand function, grip power and grip-force tracking ability after finger amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016;40:744–750. Accessed May 22, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Maat B, Smit G, Plettenburg D, et al. Passive prosthetic hands and tools: a literature review. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42:66–74.
   Google Scholar
• Reddy K, Bandela V, Bharati M, et al. Acrylic finger prosthesis: a case report. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:7–8.
   Google Scholar
• Ahmad M, Balakrishnan D, Narayan A, et al. Comprehensive rehabilitation of partially amputated index finger with silicone prosthesis: a case report with 3 years of follow up. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014;14:222–226.
   Google Scholar
• Ayub R, Villarreal D, Gregg RD, et al. Evaluation of transradial body-powered prostheses using a robotic simulator. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41:194–200.
   Google Scholar
• Behrend C, Reizner W, Marchessault JA, et al. Update on advances in upper extremity prosthetics. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36:1711–1717.
   Google Scholar
• Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson R, et al. Comparison of body-powered voluntary opening and voluntary closing prehensor for activities of daily life. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51:253–261.
   Google Scholar
• Brown JD, Kunz TS, Gardner D, et al. An empirical evaluation of force feedback in body-powered prostheses. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017;25:215–226.
   Google Scholar
• Gemmell KD, Leddy MT, Belter JT, et al. Investigation of a passive capstan based grasp enhancement feature in a voluntary-closing prosthetic terminal device. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2016;2016:5019–5025.
   Google Scholar
• Huinink L, Bouwsema H, Plettenburg D, et al. Learning to use a body-powered prosthesis: changes in functionality and kinematics. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Smit G, Bongers R, Van der Sluis C, et al. Efficiency of voluntary opening hand and hook prosthetic devices: 24 years of development? Jrrd. 2012;49:523–534.
   Google Scholar
• Hichert M, Plettenburg D. Ipsilateral scapular cutaneous anchor system: an alternative for the harness in body-powered upper-limb prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018; 42(1):101-106.
   Google Scholar
• Sensinger J, Weir R. Modeling and preliminary testing socket-residual limb interface stiffness of above-elbow prostheses. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2008;16:184–190.
   Google Scholar
• Hashim NA, Abd Razak NAB, Gholizadeh H, et al. Analysis of voluntary opening Ottobock Hook and Hosmer Hook for upper limb prosthetics: a preliminary study. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2017;62:447–454.
   Google Scholar
• Carey SL, Lura DJ, Highsmith MJ, CP: FAAOP. Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: systematic literature review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52:247–262.
   Google Scholar
• Smit G, Plettenburg D. Efficiency of voluntary closing hand and hook prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010;34:411–427.
   Google Scholar
• Belter J, Segil J, Dollar A, et al. Mechanical design and performance specifications of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: a review. Jrrd. 2013;50:599–618.
   Google Scholar
• Abd Razak N, Abu Osman N, Wan Abas W. Kinematic comparison of the wrist movements that are possible with a biomechatronics wrist prosthesis and a body-powered prosthesis: a preliminary study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8:255–260.
   Google Scholar
• Deijs M, Bongers R, Ringeling-van Leusen N, et al. Flexible and static wrist units in upper limb prosthesis users: functionality scores, user satisfaction and compensatory movements. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:26.
   Google Scholar
• Hancock L, Correia S, Ahern D, et al. Cognitive predictors of skilled performance with an advanced upper limb multifunction prosthesis: a preliminary analysis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12:504–511.
   Google Scholar
• Saikia A, Mazumdar S, Sahai N, et al. Recent advancements in prosthetic hand technology. J Med Eng Technol. 2016;40:255–264.
   Google Scholar
• Atzori M, Müller H. Control capabilities of myoelectric robotic prostheses by hand amputees: a scientific research and market overview. Front Syst Neurosci. 2015;9:162.
   Google Scholar
• Kulkarni T, Uddanwadiker R. Overview: mechanism and control of a prosthetic arm. Mol Cell Biomech. 2015;12:147–195.
   Google Scholar
• Luchetti M, Cutti A, Verni G, et al. Impact of Michelangelo prosthetic hand: findings from a crossover longitudinal study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52:605–618.
   Google Scholar
• Kyberd P, Lemaire E, Brookeshaw M, et al. Two-degree-of-freedom powered prosthetic wrist. Jrrd. 2011;48:609–617.
   Google Scholar
• Chadwell A, Kenney L, Thies S, et al. Corrigendum: the reality of myoelectric prostheses: understanding what makes these devices difficult for some users to control. Front Neurorobot. 2018;12:15.
   Google Scholar
• Head JS, Howard D, Hutchins SW, et al. The use of an adjustable electrode housing unit to compare electrode alignment and contact variation with myoelectric prosthesis functionality: a pilot study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016;40:123–128.
   Google Scholar
• Segil J, Controzzi M, Weir R, et al. Comparative study of state-of-the-art myoelectric controllers for multigrasp prosthetic hands. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51:1439–1454.
   Google Scholar
• Toledo C, Simon A, Muñoz R, et al. A comparison of direct and pattern recognition control for a two degree-of-freedom above elbow virtual prosthesis. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:4332–4335.
   Google Scholar
• Simon AM, Lock BA, Stubblefield KA. Patient training for functional use of pattern recognition–controlled prostheses. J Prosthet Orthot. 2012;24:56–64.
   Google Scholar
• Kuiken TA, Dumanian GA, Wilson C, et al. Targeted reinnervation – surgical outcomes of 30 Patients. Academy Annual Meeting-Journal of Proceedings (American Academy of Orthotists & Prosthetists). 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Kuiken T. Targeted muscle reinnervation: a promising new approach to the prevention and treatment of painful amputation neuromas. Acad Today. 2016;12:10–12.
   Google Scholar
• Gaston R, Bracey J, Tait M, et al. A novel muscle transfer for independent digital control of a myoelectric prosthesis: the starfish procedure. J Hand Surg. 2018;44(2):163.e1-163.e5.
   Google Scholar
• Lake C. The evolution of upper limb prosthetic socket design. JPO. 2008;20:85–92.
   Google Scholar
• Razak N, Gholizadeh H, Hasnan N, et al. An anthropomorphic transhumeral prosthesis socket developed based on an oscillometric pump and controlled by force-sensitive resistor pressure signals. Biomedizinische Technik [Biomed Eng]. 2017;62:49–55.
   Google Scholar
• Schofield J, Schoepp K, Williams H, et al. Characterization of interfacial socket pressure in transhumeral prostheses: a case series. Plos One. 2017;12:e0178517.
   Google Scholar
• Alley R, Williams T, Albuquerque M, et al. Prosthetic sockets stabilized by alternating areas of tissue compression and release. Jrrd. 2011;48:679–696.
   Google Scholar
• Li Y, Brånemark R. Osseointegrated prostheses for rehabilitation following amputation: the pioneering Swedish model. Unfallchirurg. 2017;120:285–292.
   Google Scholar
• Scheme E, Englehart K. Electromyogram pattern recognition for control of powered upper-limb prostheses: state of the art and challenges for clinical use. Jrrd. 2011;48:643–659.
   Google Scholar
• Hsiao SS, Fettiplace M, Darbandi B. Sensory feedback for upper limb prostheses. Prog Brain Res. 2011;192:69–81.
   Google Scholar
• Emondi A. Hand Proprioception and Touch Interfaces (HAPTIX). Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Website; [cited January 2018]. Available from: https://www.darpa.mil/program/hand-proprioception-and-touch-interfaces
   Google Scholar
• Bongers RM, Kyberd PJ, Bouwsema H, et al. Bernstein’s levels of construction of movements applied to upper limb prosthetics. J Prosthet Orthot. 2012;24:67.
   Google Scholar
• Wang S, Hsu J, Trent L, et al. Evaluation of performance-based outcome measures for the upper limb: a comprehensive narrative review. Pm&R. 2018;10:951–962.e3.
   Google Scholar