A survey on what Australians with upper limb difference want in a prosthesis: justification for using soft robotics and additive manufacturing for customized prosthetic hands

References

• Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31:236–257.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson J. A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles, and their abilities. J Hand Ther. 2002;15:62–70.
   Google Scholar
• Østlie, K. Lesjø, I. M. Franklin, R. J. et al. Prosthesis rejection in acquired major upper-limb amputees: A population-based survey Disabil Rehabilit Assist Technol. 2012; 7:294–303.
   Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehabilit. 2007;86:977–987.
   Google Scholar
• Kyberd PJ, Hill W. Survey of upper limb prosthesis users in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Canada. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35:234–241.
   Google Scholar
• Cordella F, Ciancio AL, Sacchetti R, et al. Literature review on needs of upper limb prosthesis users. Front Neurosci. 2016;10:209.
   Google Scholar
• Engdahl, S. M. Christie, B. P. Kelly, B. et al. Surveying the interest of individuals with upper limb loss in novel prosthetic control techniques. J NeuroEng Rehabilit. 2015;12.
   Google Scholar
• Wijk U, Carlsson I. Forearm amputees' views of prosthesis use and sensory feedback. J Hand Ther. 2015;28:269–278.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis S, Russold MF, Dietl H, et al. User demands for sensory feedback in upper extremity prostheses. Proc. MeMeA 2012 - 2012 IEEE Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications, Proceedings 2012;188–191.
   Google Scholar
• Asai T, Kanayama N, Imaizumi S, et al. Development of embodied sense of self scale (esss): exploring everyday experiences induced by anomalous self-representation. Front Psychol. 2016;7.
   Google Scholar
• McFarland LV, Winkler SLH, Heinemann AW, et al. Unilateral upper-limb loss: satisfaction and prosthetic-device use in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47:299–316.
   Google Scholar
• Jang CH, Yang HS, Yang HE, et al. A Survey on activities of daily living and occupations of upper extremity amputees. Ann Rehabil Med. 2011;35:907–921.
   Google Scholar
• Benz HL. Upper extremity prosthesis user perspectives on unmet needs and innovative technology. 2016. p. 287–290.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Meek SG. Prosthetic limbs. In: Neuroprosthetics. 2nd ed. World Scientific Kenneth W Horch (University of Utah, USA) and Gurpreet S Dhillon (University of Utah, USA). 2017. p. 793–810.
   Google Scholar
• Silva K, Rand S, Cancel D, et al. Three-dimensional (3-D) printing: a cost-effective solution for improving global accessibility to prostheses. PM&R. 2015;7:1312–1314.
   Google Scholar
• Burn MB, Ta A, Gogola GR. Three-dimensional printing of prosthetic hands for children. J Hand Surg. 2016;41:e103–e109.
   Google Scholar
• Mohammadi A, Lavranos J, Choong P, et al. X-Limb: a soft prosthetic hand with user-friendly interface. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on NeuroRehabilitation (ICNR2018), 2018 Oct 16–20, Pisa, Italy; 2019. p. 82–86.
   Google Scholar
• ALICI G. Softer is harder: what differentiates soft robotics from hard robotics? MRS Adv. 2018;3:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Mutlu R, Alici G, in het Panhuis M, et al. 3D printed flexure hinges for soft monolithic prosthetic fingers. Soft Robotics. 2016;3:120–133.
   Google Scholar
• Banerjee H, Tsz Ho Tse Z, Ren H. Soft robotics with compliance and adaptation for biomedical applications and forthcoming challenges. J. Robotics and Automation. 2018;33.
   Google Scholar
• Kumbay Yıldız Ş, Mutlu R, Alici G. Position control of a soft prosthetic finger with limited feedback information IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), Auckland. 2018. p. 700–705.
   Google Scholar
• M. Cianchetti, C. Laschi and A. Menciassi et al. Biomedical applications of soft robotics. 2018;3:143–153.
   Google Scholar
• Tolley M, Shepard RF, Mosadegh B, et al. A resilient, untethered soft robot. Soft Robotics. 2014;1:213–223.
   Google Scholar
• Mosadegh B, Polygerinos P, Keplinger C, et al. Pneumatic networks for soft robotics that actuate rapidly. Adv Funct Mater. 2014;24:2163–2170.
   Google Scholar
• Gul JZ, Sajid M, Rehman MM et al. 3D printing for soft robotics - a review Sci Technol Adv Mater. 2018;19:243–262. doi:10.1080/14686996.2018.1431862
   Google Scholar
• Wallin T, Pikul J, Shepherd RF. 3D printing of soft robotic systems. Nat Rev Mater. 2018;3:84–100.
   Google Scholar
• Murray CD. An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs. Disabil Rehabilit. 2004;26:963–973.
   Google Scholar
• Bjorkman A, Wijk U, Antfolk C, et al. Sensory qualities of the phantom hand map in the residual forearm of amputees. J Rehabil Med. 2016;48:365–370.
   Google Scholar
• Chai GH, Li S, Sui XH, et al. Phantom finger perception evoked with transcutaneous electrical stimulation for sensory feedback of prosthetic hand. Proceedings of 2013 6th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER). 2013. p. 271–274.
   Google Scholar
• Chai G, Sui X, Li S, et al. Characterization of evoked tactile sensation in forearm amputees with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. J Neural Eng. 2015;12:6. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/12/6/066002.
   Google Scholar
• Antfolk C, D'Alonzo M, Controzzi M, et al. Artificial redirection of sensation from prosthetic fingers to the phantom hand map on transradial amputees: vibrotactile versus mechanotactile sensory feedback. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2013;21:112–120.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrsson HH, Rosen B, Stockselius A, et al. Upper limb amputees can be induced to experience a rubber hand as their own. Brain. 2008;131:3443–3452.
   Google Scholar
• Ajoudani A, Godfrey SB, Bianchi M, et al. Exploring teleimpedance and tactile feedback for intuitive control of the Pisa/IIT SoftHand. IEEE Trans Haptics. 2014;7:203–215.
   Google Scholar
• Reyes C, Somogy R, Niu S, et al. Three-dimensional printing of a complete lithium ion battery with fused filament fabrication. ACS Applied Energy Mater. 2018;1:5268–5279.
   Google Scholar
• Johansson RS, Flanagan JR. Coding and use of tactile signals from the fingertips in object manipulation tasks. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10:345–359.
   Google Scholar
• Deimel R, Brock O. A novel type of compliant and underactuated robotic hand for dexterous grasping. Int J Robotics Res. 2016;35:161–185.
   Google Scholar
• Stephens-Fripp B, Alici G, Mutlu R. A review of non-invasive sensory feedback methods for transradial prosthetic hands. IEEE Access. 2018;6:6878–6899.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal GW, Rynes ML, Kelliher Z, et al. Review of brain-machine interfaces used in neural prosthetics with new perspective on somatosensory feedback through method of signal breakdown. Scientifica (Cairo). 2016;2016:8956432.
   Google Scholar
• Perruchoud D, Pisotta I, Carda S, et al. Biomimetic rehabilitation engineering: the importance of somatosensory feedback for brain-machine interfaces. J Neural Eng. 2016;13:041001.
   Google Scholar
• Normann RA, Fernandez E. Clinical applications of penetrating neural interfaces and Utah Electrode Array technologies. J Neural Eng. 2016;13.
   Google Scholar
• Nghiem BT, Sando IC, Gillespie RB, et al. Providing a sense of touch to prosthetic hands. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:1652–1663.
   Google Scholar
• Ortiz-Catalan M, Hakansson B, Branemark R. An osseointegrated human-machine gateway for long-term sensory feedback and motor control of artificial limbs. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:257re256.
   Google Scholar
• Cuellar J, Smit G, Zadpoor AA, et al. Ten guidelines for the design of non-assembly mechanisms: the case of 3D-printed prosthetic hands. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 2018;9:162.
   Google Scholar