







































 

 

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

