1.
Strength deficits in lower limb prosthesis users: A scoping review.
Hewson, A, Dent, S, Sawers, A
Prosthetics and orthotics international. 2020;(5):323-340
Abstract
BACKGROUND Strength deficits may play a central role in the severity of balance, mobility, and endurance impairments in lower limb prosthesis users. A body of literature detailing the scope and specifics of muscle weakness in lower limb prosthesis users is emerging, but has yet to be summarized. A synopsis of strength deficits, and their impact on functional abilities in lower limb prosthesis users, may inform rehabilitation and research needs. OBJECTIVES Synthesize reported strength deficits in lower limb prosthesis users, and discuss possible causes, consequences, and solutions. STUDY DESIGN Scoping review. METHODS A search of biomedical databases was performed, and inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to identify publications relevant to the purpose of the review. RESULTS In all, 377 publications were identified, of which 12 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. When compared with the controls and the intact limb, the primary strength outcome, peak torque, was lower in transtibial residual limb knee flexors and extensors, as well as transfemoral residual limb hip muscles. CONCLUSIONS The reviewed studies provide evidence of strength deficits in lower limb prosthesis users. These deficits appear to be consequential, as they may contribute to balance, mobility, and endurance impairments. Additional research exploring alternative strength metrics, clinical tests, and causal links to functional impairments is required. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Evidence of muscle weakness among lower limb prosthesis users, and its influence on balance, mobility, and endurance, suggests that greater clinical attention and scientific inquiry into physical conditioning of lower limb prosthesis users is merited and required.
2.
An exploration of grip force regulation with a low-impedance myoelectric prosthesis featuring referred haptic feedback.
Brown, JD, Paek, A, Syed, M, O'Malley, MK, Shewokis, PA, Contreras-Vidal, JL, Davis, AJ, Gillespie, RB
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation. 2015;:104
Abstract
BACKGROUND Haptic display technologies are well suited to relay proprioceptive, force, and contact cues from a prosthetic terminal device back to the residual limb and thereby reduce reliance on visual feedback. The ease with which an amputee interprets these haptic cues, however, likely depends on whether their dynamic signal behavior corresponds to expected behaviors-behaviors consonant with a natural limb coupled to the environment. A highly geared motor in a terminal device along with the associated high back-drive impedance influences dynamic interactions with the environment, creating effects not encountered with a natural limb. Here we explore grasp and lift performance with a backdrivable (low backdrive impedance) terminal device placed under proportional myoelectric position control that features referred haptic feedback. METHODS We fabricated a back-drivable terminal device that could be used by amputees and non-amputees alike and drove aperture (or grip force, when a stiff object was in its grasp) in proportion to a myoelectric signal drawn from a single muscle site in the forearm. In randomly ordered trials, we assessed the performance of N=10 participants (7 non-amputee, 3 amputee) attempting to grasp and lift an object using the terminal device under three feedback conditions (no feedback, vibrotactile feedback, and joint torque feedback), and two object weights that were indiscernible by vision. RESULTS Both non-amputee and amputee participants scaled their grip force according to the object weight. Our results showed only minor differences in grip force, grip/load force coordination, and slip as a function of sensory feedback condition, though the grip force at the point of lift-off for the heavier object was significantly greater for amputee participants in the presence of joint torque feedback. An examination of grip/load force phase plots revealed that our amputee participants used larger safety margins and demonstrated less coordination than our non-amputee participants. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that a backdrivable terminal device may hold advantages over non-backdrivable devices by allowing grip/load force coordination consistent with behaviors observed in the natural limb. Likewise, the inconclusive effect of referred haptic feedback on grasp and lift performance suggests the need for additional testing that includes adequate training for participants.