New Voluntary Opening Prosthetic Devices Offer no Improvement Over Old Devices

  • O&P Business News, August 2012

Researchers have found no improvements in new voluntary opening prosthetic devices when compared with data from devices in 1987, according to a recent study.

“The first measurements of voluntary closing devices were published in Prosthetics and Orthotics International in 2010,” Gerwin Smit, MSc, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, told O&P Business News. “We were surprised by the poor mechanical performance of most voluntary closing devices. We wanted to know if this was also the case in voluntary opening devices.”

According to Smit and colleagues, no recent data are available on the mechanical efficiency of voluntary opening devices. The latest study on a broad range of adult- and child-sized voluntary opening devices was published by Corin and colleagues in 1987. By comparing their study findings with those of Corin and colleagues, researchers could “give an objective view of how voluntary opening terminal devices have improved during the past decades,” according to Smit.

New vs. old

Smit and colleagues quantitatively tested nine voluntary opening prosthetic devices — four hooks and five hands— measuring the pinch forces, activation forces, cable displacements, mass and opening span and calculated the work and hysteresis. The results were compared with the 1987 data on prosthetic devices.

Study results showed that the hooks were lighter than a human hand and the gloved hands were the same weight as the human hand. The opening span of the hooks was wider than the span of the gloved hands, and the hooks had a longer maximum cable excursion range. Activation forces and pinch forces were higher in hooks, according to the researchers. However, activation forces of several devices were very high and pinch forces were too low in all tested hands.

When study results were compared with data from 1987, researchers found no significant difference for the required work or pinch forces for the hooks or for the hands. However, the activation force required for new hooks and hands was significantly higher compared with the older devices of the 1987 data, which suggests they actually performed worse.

“It can therefore be concluded that, despite all technologic advantages in other fields, [voluntary opening] prosthetic devices have not improved since 1987,” the researchers wrote. “This study also shows that some newer devices had a poorer performance than devices tested in 1987.”

“Various user studies indicate that there is a need for improvement of body powered terminal devices,” Smit said. “This is especially the case for body powered prosthetic hands, which show high rejection rates.”

Room for improvement

The results indicated that more research is needed on prosthetics to find improvements. Some improvement opportunities include reducing the mass of the hands and activation force to enable comfortable wearing; increasing pinch force to an acceptable level; and developing more flexible cosmetic gloves, as well as either a more flexible or no inner glove. The researchers suggested further study should be performed to determine the comfortable activation force level and examine optimal shoulder movement for the most efficient force.

“Currently we are developing a body-powered prosthetic hand, which provides sufficient pinch force and which requires activation force that is comfortable to the user,” Smit said. “Surprisingly, there is no data available in literature on what level of activation force of the shoulder harness is comfortable or acceptable to the user. Therefore, we are also conducting a study to determine the optimal activation force level.”

Smit and colleagues concluded that it is not only desirable to improve body-powered prostheses, but necessary so that prosthesis users could be “offered a prosthesis that is optimized to their needs and demands.” — by Casey Murphy

References:

Smit G. Efficiency of voluntary opening hand and hook devices: 24 years of development.

J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49:523-534.

Disclosure: Smit received financial support from OIM Stichting.

Perspective
  • The study by Smit and colleagues provides helpful data on the performance of commercially available, body-powered prehension devices. Although it is limited by having a single sample of each device, it still gives highly relevant information that can be used as benchmarks for design. As such, it is likely that the findings will be of more benefit to the R&D community than to clinicians looking for guidance in choosing among the devices studied. Mechanical performance is only one of many, many factors that a client and clinician consider in selecting a prosthesis with appropriate features. However, to improve upon what we have now, we need to know what we have, and this study establishes the “what” from a mechanical perspective.

    • Craig W. Heckathorne,, MSc
    • Research engineer; specialist, upper-limb prosthetics,
      Northwestern University Prosthetics-Orthotics Center
  • Disclosures: Heckathorne has no relevant financial disclosures.
Perspective
Robert Radocy

Robert Radocy

  • Gerwin Smit and colleagues have again provided a thorough, scientific assessment of an important segment of current body powered technology. I agree with the researchers’ conclusion that VO devices have not improved in over 30 years. This conclusion reinforces the questions that the study poses. In particular, why have they not improved and, equally important, what would be their potential now if research resources and investment in the last 20 years had been balanced between improving basic body-powered technology, and electro-mechanical (bionic) prostheses?

    VO devices do not compare to the human hand. They cannot produce a gripping force for the activities in life requiring bimanual strength and coordination. Additionally, they provide a gripping configuration foreign to holding most basic objects. Improved VO systems are possible. Better materials are available and being incorporated into body powered prosthetic systems to improve reliability and efficiency. Improving on the capturing and controlling of body powered forces needs to be explored in much greater depth and is worth being supported by research funding.

    • Robert Radocy
    • Chief executive officer and president of TRS Inc.,Boulder, Colo.
  • Disclosures:Radocy has no relevant financial disclosures.

Comments

Healio is intended for health care provider use and all comments will be posted at the discretion of the editors. We reserve the right not to post any comments with unsolicited information about medical devices or other products. At no time will Healio be used for medical advice to patients.