Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) · 2022
A comparison of compensatory movements between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users during activities of daily living.
СтатьяПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Engdahl Susannah M, Lee Christina, Gates Deanna H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: People with upper limb absence use compensatory movements to accommodate lack of motion in the prosthetic hand. The purpose of this study was to determine if the type of prosthesis used (i.e. body-powered or myoelectric) affects compensatory movements during activities of daily living.
METHODS: Twelve transradial body-powered and/or myoelectric prosthesis users performed up to six unimanual and bimanual activities of daily living. Trunk range of motion and peak upper limb angles for each task were compared between prostheses.
FINDINGS: Compensatory movement generally did not differ based on prosthesis type. However, body-powered users had increased trunk lateral lean compared to myoelectric users during a deodorant application task (P = 0.025). Body-powered users also had increased trunk axial rotation (P = 0.048) and decreased shoulder elevation (P = 0.046) when transferring a box between shelves. Compensatory movements were not systematically correlated with duration of prosthesis ownership, socket comfort, or terminal device type.
INTERPRETATION: A prosthesis user's compensatory movements may depend on other factors beyond whether the prosthesis terminal device is actuated through body-powered or myoelectric mechanisms. Further exploration of the factors that influence joint kinematics in prosthesis users may inform future prosthesis prescription practices and help patients become successful users.
METHODS: Twelve transradial body-powered and/or myoelectric prosthesis users performed up to six unimanual and bimanual activities of daily living. Trunk range of motion and peak upper limb angles for each task were compared between prostheses.
FINDINGS: Compensatory movement generally did not differ based on prosthesis type. However, body-powered users had increased trunk lateral lean compared to myoelectric users during a deodorant application task (P = 0.025). Body-powered users also had increased trunk axial rotation (P = 0.048) and decreased shoulder elevation (P = 0.046) when transferring a box between shelves. Compensatory movements were not systematically correlated with duration of prosthesis ownership, socket comfort, or terminal device type.
INTERPRETATION: A prosthesis user's compensatory movements may depend on other factors beyond whether the prosthesis terminal device is actuated through body-powered or myoelectric mechanisms. Further exploration of the factors that influence joint kinematics in prosthesis users may inform future prosthesis prescription practices and help patients become successful users.