University of Michigan, 830 N. University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
University of Michigan, 830 N. University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI, USA; School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2021 Apr;84:105311. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.105311. Epub 2021 Mar 9.
Upper limb prostheses likely do not enable movements having the same kinematic characteristics as anatomical limbs. The quality of movements made using body-powered and myoelectric prostheses may further differ based on the availability of sensory feedback and method of terminal device actuation. The purpose of this work was to compare the quality of movements made with body-powered and myoelectric prostheses during activities of daily living.
Nine transradial body-powered and/or myoelectric prosthesis users and nine controls without limb loss performed six activities of daily living. Movement quality, defined as duration, straightness, and smoothness, for the reaching and manipulation phases was compared between prostheses, as well as prostheses and anatomical limbs.
The quality of reaching movements were generally similar between prostheses. However, movements with body-powered prostheses were slower (P = 0.007) and less smooth (P < 0.001) when reaching to a deodorant stick and movements with myoelectric prostheses were slower when reaching to place a pin on a corkboard (P = 0.023). Movements with myoelectric prostheses were slower (P ≤ 0.021) and less smooth (P ≤ 0.012) than those with body-powered prostheses during object manipulation, but these differences were not present for all tasks. Movements with prostheses were slower, more curved, and less smooth compared to those with anatomical limbs.
Differences in the quality of movements made with body-powered and myoelectric prostheses primarily occur during object manipulation, rather than reaching. These differences do not exist for all tasks, suggesting that neither prosthesis type offers an absolute advantage in terms of movement quality.
上肢假肢可能无法实现与解剖学肢体相同的运动学特征。基于感觉反馈和末端执行器驱动方式的不同，使用身体驱动和肌电假肢进行的运动质量可能会进一步有所差异。本研究旨在比较上肢假肢在日常活动中的运动质量。
9 名桡骨截肢的身体驱动和/或肌电假肢使用者和 9 名无肢体缺失的对照者完成了 6 项日常活动。在假肢和解剖学肢体之间，比较了从伸展到操纵的阶段的运动质量，用时间、直线度和流畅性来定义。
假肢之间的伸展运动质量通常相似。然而，当伸手去拿除臭棒时，使用身体驱动假肢的运动速度较慢（P=0.007），流畅性较差（P<0.001），而使用肌电假肢时，在将别针放在软木塞上的运动速度较慢（P=0.023）。在操纵物体时，使用肌电假肢的运动速度较慢（P≤0.021），流畅性较差（P≤0.012），但并非所有任务都存在这些差异。与解剖学肢体相比，假肢的运动速度较慢，曲线较多，流畅性较差。
身体驱动和肌电假肢在运动质量上的差异主要发生在物体操纵过程中，而不是伸展过程中。并非所有任务都存在这些差异，这表明两种假肢在运动质量方面都没有绝对优势。
