Patient perspectives on benefits and risks of implantable interfaces for upper limb prostheses: a national survey

References

• Resnik L, Lieberman Klinger S, Krauthamer V, et al. U.S. Food and drug administration regulation of prosthetic research, development, and testing. J Prosthet Orthot. 2010;22(2):121–126.
   Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Dec;86(12):977–987. PubMed PMID: 18090439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007 Sep;31(3):236–257. PubMed PMID: 17979010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cordella F, Ciancio AL, Sacchetti R, et al. Literature review on needs of upper limb prosthesis users [Review]. Front Neurosci. 2016;10:209. PubMed PMID: 27242413; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4864250. Eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker JJ, Scheme E, Englehart K, et al. Continuous detection and decoding of dexterous finger flexions with implantable myoelectric sensors [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2010 Aug;18(4):424–432. PubMed PMID: 20378481; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schorsch JF, Maas H, Troyk PR, et al. MULTIFUNCTION PROSTHESIS CONTROL USING IMPLANTED MYOELECTRIC SENSORS (IMES). MEC’08: Measuring Success in Upper Limb Prosthetics: University of New Brunswick’s Myoelectric Controls/Powered Prosthetics Symposium; 2008 Aug 13–15; Fredericton, N.B., Canada: Myoelectric Symposium; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Weir RF, Troyk PR, DeMichele G, et al., editors. Implantable myoelectric sensors (IMES) for upper-extremity prosthesis control – preliminary work. IEEE Engineering In Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS); 2003 Sep 17–21; Cancun, Mexico; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Weir RF, Troyk PR, DeMichele G, et al. Implantable Myoelectric Sensors (IMES). MEC’05: Integrating Prosthetics and Medicine: University of New Brunswick’s Myoelectric Controls/Powered Prosthetics Symposium; 2005 Aug 17-19; Fredericton, N.B., Canada: Myoelectric Symposium; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Kuiken TA, Dumanian GA, Lipschutz RD, et al. The use of targeted muscle reinnervation for improved myoelectric prosthesis control in a bilateral shoulder disarticulation amputee. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2004 Dec;28(3):245–253. PubMed PMID: 15658637; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiefer M, Tan D, Sidek SM, et al. Sensory feedback by peripheral nerve stimulation improves task performance in individuals with upper limb loss using a myoelectric prosthesis. J Neural Eng. 2016 Feb;13(1):016001. PubMed PMID: 26643802.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan DW, Schiefer MA, Keith MW, et al. A neural interface provides long-term stable natural touch perception [Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S.]. Sci Transl Med. 2014 Oct 8;6(257):257ra138. PubMed PMID: 25298320; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler DJ. Neural interfaces for somatosensory feedback: bringing life to a prosthesis. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015 Dec;28(6):574–581. PubMed PMID: 26544029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendelken S, Page DM, Davis T, et al. Restoration of motor control and proprioceptive and cutaneous sensation in humans with prior upper-limb amputation via multiple Utah Slanted Electrode Arrays (USEAs) implanted in residual peripheral arm nerves. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017 Nov 25;14(1):121. PubMed PMID: 29178940; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5702130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhillon GS, Horch KW. Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005 Dec;13(4):468–472. PubMed PMID: 16425828; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schofield JS, Evans KR, Carey JP, et al. Applications of sensory feedback in motorized upper extremity prosthesis: a review. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014 Sep;11(5):499–511. PubMed PMID: 24928327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson P, Wijk U, Bjorkman A, et al. A review of invasive and non-invasive sensory feedback in upper limb prostheses. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017 Jun;14(6):439–447. PubMed PMID: 28532184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller LA, Lipschutz RD, Stubblefield KA, et al. Control of a six degree of freedom prosthetic arm after targeted muscle reinnervation surgery. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Nov;89(11):2057–2065. PubMed PMID: 18996233; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TITLE 21–FOOD AND DRUGS, Stat. 21 C.F.R. § 860.7; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Administration. UFaD. Guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. Patient preference information—voluntary submission, review in premarket approval applications, humanitarian device exemption applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in decision summaries and device labeling 2016 [cited 2018 Dec 11]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm446680.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter NL, O’Callaghan KM, Califf RM. Engaging patients across the spectrum of medical product development: view from the US Food and Drug Administration. Jama. 2015 Dec 15;314(23):2499–2500. PubMed PMID: 26584067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, et al. A framework for incorporating patient preferences regarding benefits and risks into regulatory assessment of medical technologies. Value Health. 2016 Sep–Oct;19(6):746–750. PubMed PMID: 27712701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoos A, Anderson J, Boutin M, et al. Partnering with patients in the development and lifecycle of medicines: a call for action. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015 Nov;49(6):929–939. PubMed PMID: 26539338; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4616907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purks JL, Wilhelm EE, Shoulson I, et al. Inaugural conference on incorporating patient-reported outcomes and patient preference information into clinical research, clinical care, and risk-benefit assessments for neurodegenerative diseases. Patient. 2017 Oct;10(5):541–544. PubMed PMID: 28688021; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5605607.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davidson J. A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles, and their abilities. J Hand Ther. 2002 Jan-Mar;15(1):62–70. PubMed PMID: 11866354; eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Engdahl SM, Christie BP, Kelly B, et al. Surveying the interest of individuals with upper limb loss in novel prosthetic control techniques [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S.]. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12 53. PubMed PMID: 26071402; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4465617. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engdahl SM, Chestek CA, Kelly B, et al. Factors associated with interest in novel interfaces for upper limb prosthesis control. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0182482. PubMed PMID: 28767716; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5540477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen EM, Benz HL, Tsai JH, et al. Identifying and prioritizing concerns associated with prosthetic devices for use in a benefit-risk assessment: a mixed-methods approach. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018 May;15(5):385–398. PubMed PMID: 29707973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benz HL, Jia Y, Rose L, et al. Upper extremity prosthesis user perspectives on unmet needs and innovative technology. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2016 Aug;2016:287–290. PubMed PMID: 28268333; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5508653.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Resnik L, Benz H, Borgia M, et al. Patient perspectives on osseointegration: a national survey of veterans with upper limb amputation. Pm R. 2019 Feb 19. PubMed PMID: 30784201. DOI:10.1002/pmrj.12147
   PubMedGoogle 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 PMID: 30870496; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6417699 author and not necessarily endorsed by the Department of Defense. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware J Jr., Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220–233. PubMed PMID: 8628042.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3130–3139. PubMed PMID: 11124729; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliot AC, Reisch JS Implementing a multiple comparison test for proportions in a 2xc Crosstabulation in SAS® Center for Biostatistics and Clinical Science: UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. [cited 2019 May 28]. Available from: http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi31/204-31.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Research. AAfPO. Response rates - an overview 2018. [cited 2019 May 28]. Available from: https://www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/For-Researchers/Poll-Survey-FAQ/Response-Rates-An-Overview.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Mather M, Mazar N, Gorlick MA, et al. Risk preferences and aging: the “certainty effect” in older adults’ decision making. Psychol Aging. 2012 Dec;27(4):801–816. PubMed PMID: 23066800; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3565580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargrove LJ, Miller LA, Turner K, et al. Myoelectric pattern recognition outperforms direct control for transhumeral amputees with targeted muscle reinnervation: a randomized clinical trial. Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 23;7(1):13840. PubMed PMID: 29062019; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5653840.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuiken TA, Li G, Lock BA, et al. Targeted muscle reinnervation for real-time myoelectric control of multifunction artificial arms. Jama. 2009 Feb 11;301(6):619–628. PubMed PMID: 19211469; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiber GE, McFarland LV, Hubbard S, et al. Servicemembers and veterans with major traumatic limb loss from Vietnam war and OIF/OEF conflicts: survey methods, participants, and summary findings. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(4):275–297. PubMed PMID: 20803399; eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tabot GA, Dammann JF, Berg JA, et al. Restoring the sense of touch with a prosthetic hand through a brain interface. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Nov 5;110(45):18279–18284. PubMed PMID: 24127595; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3831459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar