This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson...

This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson R, Miller LA, Sensinger JW. Comparison of body-powered voluntary opening and voluntary closing prehensor for activities of daily life. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):253–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123

Slideshow ProjectDOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123JSP

Comparison of body-powered voluntary opening and

voluntary closing prehensor for activities of daily life

Kelsey Berning; Sarah Cohick; Reva Johnson, MS; Laura Ann Miller, PhD, CP; Jonathon W. Sensinger, PhD



• Aim– Determine whether using voluntary opening or voluntary

closing device makes functional difference in activities of daily living.

– Assess possibility of providing both functions in one device.

• Relevance–Most persons with upper-limb amputation use body-

powered prostheses but must choose between voluntary opening and voluntary closing devices.



Method• Subjects– 29 nondisabled (used body-powered bypass prosthesis).– 2 with unilateral transradial amputation (used conventional

body-powered device). • Measures– Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure to examine

functional difference between opening and closing prehensors.– Survey to determine prehensor preference for specific tasks and

assess possible advantage of prehensor that switches between modes.



Results

• Voluntary closing prehensor was 1.3 s faster than voluntary opening prehensor across tasks.

• Subjects agreed on which types of tasks they preferred to do with each prehensor.



Conclusion

• 25 subjects wanted a device that could switch between opening and closing modes to perform particular tasks.

This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson...

Documents

Transcript of This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson...