Popovic I, Cutti A, Ryan T, Schaefer M, Andres E, Wuestefeld D, Winkler C, Baun K, Bischof B, Braatz F, Miguelez J, Conyers D , Hahn A. DO MULTI-GRIP HANDS INCREASE FUNCTION AND PATIENT SATISFACTION WHEN COMPARED TO TRADITIONAL MYOELECTRIC HANDS? CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2, 2018; ABSTRACT, POSTER PRESENTATION AT THE AOPA’S 101ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SEPT. 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32049 1 OPEN ACCESS AOPA’S 101 ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ABSTRACTS, SEPTEMBER 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018 ABSTRACT (POSTER PRESENTATION) DO MULTI-GRIP HANDS INCREASE FUNCTION AND PATIENT SATISFACTION WHEN COMPARED TO TRADITIONAL MYOELECTRIC HANDS? Ivana Popovic1, Andrea Cutti2, Tiffany Ryan3, Michael Schaefer4, Erik Andres1, Daniela Wuestefeld1, Claudia Winkler4, Kerstin Baun3, Birgit Bischof1, Frank Braatz5, John Miguelez3, Dan Conyers3, Andreas Hahn1* 1Otto Bock Healthcare Otto Bock, Germany. 2 Centro Protesi INAI, Italy. 3 Advanced Arm Dynamics, USA. 4 Pohlig GmbH, Germany. 5 Medical University of Gottingen, Germany. * E-mail: Andreas.Hahn@ottobock.com DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32049 INTRODUCTION Myoelectric hands progressed from single grip hands (traditional myoelectric devices (TH)) to be multi-grip hands (MGH) which are hypothesized to bring more degrees of freedom, greater range of motion and improved grasping capabilities1,2. Their impact on patients’ lives has been documented in only a few case studies. The Strategic Consortium for Upper Limb Prosthetic Technologies (SCULPT) aims to assess the potential benefits MGH with respect to function and patient satisfaction compared to TH systems. METHODS Transradial upper limb amputees currently fitted with Variplus Hand, Sensor Hand Speed, Michelangelo Hand (MH), i-Limb Hand (LH), bebionic Hand (BH), or Vincent Hand (VH) have been enrolled. After informed consent, participants completed a survey either online, during telephone interview, or in person. The survey comprises self-reported outcome measures: (1) Trinity Amputation Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES); (2) Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH); (3) Euro Quality of Life Questionnaire (EQ-5D); and (4) SCULPT questionnaire. The SCULPT questionnaire addresses (a) general assessment, (b) usage of prosthetic hand, (c) prosthetic hand selection, (d) functionality of prosthetic hand, (e) therapy and training, (f) service and failure of the prosthetic hand, and (g) change of the prosthetic hand. RESULTS Data for 124 users were analyzed. Users were mainly male (78%), median age 38ys (range 18-65ys), 72% had acquired amputation. 48% were TH users, while 52% were fitted with MGH (27% MH, 13% LH, 11% BH, 1% VH). MGH showed superiority over TH in SCULPT hand selection (p<0.001) and hand functionality scores (p<0.001) (Figure 1). MGH were appreciated for their aesthetic appearance, flexible wrist, and functionality of different grip patterns. SCULPT hand selection and hand functionality scores showed weak positive correlations with all TAPES sub-scores (p<0.01). No statistical significant difference was observed in TAPES, DASH, and EQ-5D. Stratification revealed advantages of MH, BH and TH over LH in DASH core (p<0.05), TAPES optimal adjustment sub-score (p<0.05), QALY (p<0.01) and phantom limb pain (MH vs LH, p<0.05; BH vs LH, p=0.01, TH vs LH p<0.01). MH and BH were worn most with average wearing time of 12 h/day (LH 8h/day, p<0.05). Users of BH hand reported highest adjustment to limitation (p<0.05) and satisfaction (p<0.05). BH was most appreciated for its appearance (p<0.05). In comparison to MH and TH users gave advantage to BH´s color and shape. Figure 1. SCULPT hand selection and hand functionality scores for MGH and TH (*** p<0.001) https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32049 mailto:Andreas.Hahn@ottobock.com https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32049 Popovic I, Cutti A, Ryan T, Schaefer M, Andres E, Wuestefeld D, Winkler C, Baun K, Bischof B, Braatz F, Miguelez J, Conyers D , Hahn A. DO MULTI-GRIP HANDS INCREASE FUNCTION AND PATIENT SATISFACTION WHEN COMPARED TO TRADITIONAL MYOELECTRIC HANDS? CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2, 2018; ABSTRACT, POSTER PRESENTATION AT THE AOPA’S 101ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SEPT. 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32049 2 OPEN ACCESS AOPA’S 101 ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ABSTRACTS, SEPTEMBER 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018 ABSTRACT (POSTER PRESENTATION) In everyday life activities BH and MH were preferable for hobby activities, BH for activities such as opening a door, washing, and carrying a bag or briefcase, MH for doing heavy household chores and cutting activities. Compared to users initially fitted with the MGH and having exclusive experience with MGH, users who experienced both, TH and MGH, report significantly increased wearing time of their current MGH (p<0.05), hand functionality (measured via DASH, p<0.05), and quality of life (QALY, p<0.05). CONCLUSION Compared to TH, MGH bring additional value to users with respect to aesthetic appearance, flexible wrist options, and functionality of different grip patterns. Still, neither MGH matches a “perfect hand” leaving substantial margin for improvement. Performance based tests as well as cross over studies are suggested to better evaluate the differences between TH and MGH. SIGNIFICANCE One of the largest surveys on exoskeletal myoelectric hand prosthetics allow insights on the relevant differences between single and multi-grip devices. REFERENCES 1.Belter JT, et al. Mechanical design and performance specifications of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(5):599-618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2011.10.0188 2.Vergara M et al. An introductory study of common grasps used by adults during performance of activities of daily living. J Hand Ther. 2014;27(3):225-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2014.04. 002. DISCLOSURE SCULPT combines the experience of physicians, engineers, therapists, clinicians, and certified prosthetists. SCULPT members are: Advanced Arm Dynamics USA; Centro Protesi INAIL, Italy; Pohlig GmbH, Germany; Otto Bock Healthcare. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32049