Dexterity, activity performance, disability, quality of life, and independence in upper limb Veteran prosthesis users: a normative study

References

• Jette AM. The promise of assistive technology to enhance work participation. Phys Ther. 2017;97(7):691–692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey SL, Stevens P, Highsmith J. Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses systematic literature review update 2013–2016. J Prosthet Orthot. 2017;29(4):P17–P20.
   Google Scholar
• 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(3):e0213578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkins DJ, Heard DC, Donovan WH. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet Orthot. 1996;8(1):2–11.
   Google Scholar
• Kyberd PJ, Hill W. Survey of upper limb prosthesis users in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Canada. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(2):234–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalley SA, Bennett DA, Goldfarb M. Preliminary functional assessment of a multigrasp myoelectric prosthesis [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural]. Conference proceedings: Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Annual Conference; 2012. p. 4172–4175.
   Google Scholar
• 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(8):1123–1128.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bouwsema H, Kyberd PJ, Hill W, et al. Determining skill level in myoelectric prosthesis use with multiple outcome measures. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(9):1331–1348.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kyberd PJ. The influence of control format and hand design in single axis myoelectric hands: assessment of functionality of prosthetic hands using the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(3):285–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(6):776–783.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell TR, Weir RF. The optimal controller delay for myoelectric prostheses. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007;15(1):111–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M, Clark M. Function and quality of life of unilateral major upper limb amputees: impact of prosthesis use and type. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(8):1396–1406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mobius bionics: luke arm; 2017. Available from: http://www.mobiusbionics.com/the-luke-arm.html
   Google Scholar
• System Electric Greifer; 2020; [cited 2020 Jan 31]. Available from: https://www.ottobockus.com/prosthetics/upper-limb-prosthetics/solution-overview/system-electric-greifer/
   Google Scholar
• Myoelectric Speed Hands; 2020; [cited 2020 Jan 31]. Available from: https://www.ottobockus.com/prosthetics/upper-limb-prosthetics/solution-overview/myoelectric-devices-speedhands/
   Google Scholar
• Touch Bionics; 2013; [cited 2013 May 22]. Available from: http://www.touchbionics.com/products/active-prostheses/i-limb-ultra/
   Google Scholar
• Michaelangelo Hand; 2013; [cited 2013 May 22]. Available from: http://www.living-with-michelangelo.com/gb/home/
   Google Scholar
• Bebionic Hand; 2013; [cited 2013 May 22]. Available from: http://bebionic.com/
   Google Scholar
• Hackel ME, Wolfe GA, Bang SM, et al. Changes in hand function in the aging adult as determined by the Jebsen Test of Hand Function. Phys Ther. 1992;72(5):373–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, et al. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969;50(6):311–319.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, et al. Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 1985;39(6):386–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxford Grice K, Vogel KA, Le V, et al. Adult norms for a commercially available Nine Hole Peg Test for finger dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 2003;57(5):570–573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Kashman N, et al. Adult norms for the nine hole peg test of finger dexterity. Occup Ther J Res. 1985;5(1):24–38.
   Google Scholar
• Metcalf CD, Woodward H, Wright V, et al. Changes in hand function with age and normative unimpaired scores when measured with the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure. Hand Ther. 2008;13(3):79–83.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Adams L, Borgia M, et al. Development and evaluation of the activities measure for upper limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;94(3):488–494.e4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M, Acluche F. Brief activity performance measure for upper limb amputees: BAM-ULA. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42(1):75–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M, Acluche F. Timed activity performance in persons with upper limb amputation: a preliminary study. J Hand Ther. 2017;30(4):468–476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Tian F, Ni P, et al. Computer-adaptive test to measure community reintegration of Veterans. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(4):557–566.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M, Ni P, et al. Reliability, validity and administrative burden of the community reintegration of injured service members computer adaptive test (CRIS-CAT). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):145.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Selim AJ, Rogers W, Fleishman JA, et al. Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):43–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat. 2001;29:1165–1188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmond DM, MacLachlan M. Factor structure of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES) with individuals with acquired upper limb amputations. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(7):506–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M. Reliability and validity of outcome measures for upper limb amputation. J Prosthet Orthot. 2012;24(4):192–212.
   Google Scholar
• Aasheim T, Finsen V. The DASH and the QuickDASH instruments. Normative values in the general population in Norway. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2014;39(2):140–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik LJ, Borgia ML, Acluche F, et al. How do the outcomes of the DEKA Arm compare to conventional prostheses? PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0191326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson J. A comparison of upper limb amputees and patients with upper limb injuries using the disability of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH). MEC’05: Integrating Prosthetics and Medicine: University of New Brunswick's Myoelectric Controls/Powered Prosthetics Symposium; 2005 Aug 17–19; Fredericton, NB, Canada: Myoelectric Symposium; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Ostlie K, Franklin RJ, Skjeldal OH, et al. Assessing physical function in adult acquired major upper-limb amputees by combining the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Outcome Questionnaire and clinical examination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(10):1636–1645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the QuickDASH in patients with upper limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(9):1676–1683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar