Prosthetics and orthotics international · 2017
Does the DEKA Arm substitute for or supplement conventional prostheses.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Resnik Linda, Acluche Frantzy, Lieberman Klinger Shana, Borgia Matthew
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Research on home use of advanced upper limb prostheses is needed.
OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare DEKA Arm usage patterns during the last 4 weeks of a home trial for participants with a personal prosthesis and those without. To compare usage patterns during home trial to those of the personal prosthesis prior to home trial. To evaluate user activity preferences for the DEKA Arm and personal prosthesis after a trial of home use.
STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, time-series design.
METHODS: Data from 17 participants were analyzed. At baseline, prosthesis users reported days and hours they wore and used personal device(s). Home trial diaries documented days and hours of wear and use for the DEKA Arm and personal device(s), if applicable. Questionnaires asked prosthesis users to list activities they could do with the DEKA Arm but not with their current prosthesis and vice versa and activities they preferred doing with either devices.
RESULTS: The DEKA Arm was worn 81% and used 73% of functioning days, averaging 4.2 h worn and 2.4 h used on days worn. During home trial, prosthesis users used personal devices and any prosthesis for fewer hours/day than at baseline.
CONCLUSION: The DEKA supplemented but did not substitute for the personal prosthesis. Clinical relevance Findings strongly suggest that given the limitations of the DEKA Arm and conventional prosthesis, persons with upper limb amputation would be best served and would be able to perform the widest range of activities if they had several types of devices.
OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare DEKA Arm usage patterns during the last 4 weeks of a home trial for participants with a personal prosthesis and those without. To compare usage patterns during home trial to those of the personal prosthesis prior to home trial. To evaluate user activity preferences for the DEKA Arm and personal prosthesis after a trial of home use.
STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, time-series design.
METHODS: Data from 17 participants were analyzed. At baseline, prosthesis users reported days and hours they wore and used personal device(s). Home trial diaries documented days and hours of wear and use for the DEKA Arm and personal device(s), if applicable. Questionnaires asked prosthesis users to list activities they could do with the DEKA Arm but not with their current prosthesis and vice versa and activities they preferred doing with either devices.
RESULTS: The DEKA Arm was worn 81% and used 73% of functioning days, averaging 4.2 h worn and 2.4 h used on days worn. During home trial, prosthesis users used personal devices and any prosthesis for fewer hours/day than at baseline.
CONCLUSION: The DEKA supplemented but did not substitute for the personal prosthesis. Clinical relevance Findings strongly suggest that given the limitations of the DEKA Arm and conventional prosthesis, persons with upper limb amputation would be best served and would be able to perform the widest range of activities if they had several types of devices.