Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2012
Kinematic comparison of the wrist movements that are possible with a biomechatronics wrist prosthesis and a body-powered prosthesis: a preliminary study.
Клинический случайСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abd Razak N A, Abu Osman N A, Wan Abas W A B
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study examined the kinematic differences between a body-powered prosthesis and a biomechatronics prosthesis as a transradial amputee performed activities that involve flexion/extension and supination/pronation of the wrist.
METHOD: The subject's wrist movements were calculated and compared as he completed a wrist range of motion test involving simulated flexion/extension and supination/pronation.
RESULTS: The results revealed that, under the test conditions, the body-powered prosthesis limits an individual's ability to complete four different tasks of wrist movement especially when it comes to complete the supination/pronation movement. Conversely, while using biomechatronics wrist prosthesis, the user was able to compensate for limited wrist motion through an ability to achieve a greater range of wrist movement.
CONCLUSIONS: The biomechatronics wrist prosthesis provides a greater degree of freedom of wrist flexion/extension and supination/pronation movements.
METHOD: The subject's wrist movements were calculated and compared as he completed a wrist range of motion test involving simulated flexion/extension and supination/pronation.
RESULTS: The results revealed that, under the test conditions, the body-powered prosthesis limits an individual's ability to complete four different tasks of wrist movement especially when it comes to complete the supination/pronation movement. Conversely, while using biomechatronics wrist prosthesis, the user was able to compensate for limited wrist motion through an ability to achieve a greater range of wrist movement.
CONCLUSIONS: The biomechatronics wrist prosthesis provides a greater degree of freedom of wrist flexion/extension and supination/pronation movements.