Survey of upper-extremity prosthesis users in Sweden and the United Kingdom

Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 55-62

  Kyberd, Peter J ^a,b   Wartenberg, Constanze ^c   Sandsjö, Leif ^c,d   Jönsson, Stewe ^e   Gow, David ^f,g   Frid, Joakim ^c   Almström, Christian ^h   Sperling, Lena ⁱ  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR WORKING LIFE   (Sweden)

^d CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^e SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^f NHS LOTHIAN   (United Kingdom)

^g Princess Margaret Rose Orthopaedic Hospital   (United Kingdom)

^h Lindholmen Science Park   (Sweden)

ⁱ LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Artificial arms; Control; Design; Myoelectric control; Prosthetic limbs; Survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247113256     PISSN: 10408800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/JPO.0b013e3180459df6     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Kyberd PJ, Poulton AS, Sandsjö L, et al. The ToMPAW modular prosthesis: A platform for research in upper limb prosthetics. J Prosthet Orthot 2007;19(1):15-21.
2. Almström C, Herberts P, Korner L. Experience with Swedish multifunctional prosthetic hands controlled by pattern recognition of multiple myoelectric signals. Int Orthop 1981;5(1):15-21.
3. Gow DJ, Dick TD, Draper ERC, et al. The physiologically appropriate control of an electrically powered hand prosthesis. Presented at: International Society of Prosthetics and Orthotics 4th World Congress; September 1983; London, United Kingdom.
4. Kyberd PJ. The Algorithmic Control of a Multifunction Hand Prosthesis [PhD thesis]. Southampton University, United Kingdom; Electrical Engineering Department, 1990.
5. Kyberd PJ, Beard DJ, Morrison JD. The population of users of upper limb prostheses in Oxfordshire. Prosthet Orthot Int 1997;21(2):85-91.
6. Bergman K, Örnholmer L, Zackrisson K, Thyberg M. Functional benefit of an adaptive myoelectric prosthetic hand compared to a conventional myoelectric hand. Prosthet Orthot Int 1992;16:32-37.
7. Miller LA, Lipschutz RD, Weir RW, et al. Shoulder disarticulation fitting with six independently controlled motors after targeted hyper-reinnervation nerve transfer surgery. Presented at: Myoelectric Controls Symposium; August 25-27, 2005; Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
8. Jones B, Kyberd PJ. Improved control for an artificial arm. Presented at: Myoelectric Controls Symposium; August 25-27, 2005; Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, pp. 43-48.
9. Baits JC, Todd RW, Nightingale JM. The feasibility of an adaptive control scheme for artificial prehension. Proceedings of a Symposium at the Institute of Mechanical Engineering, 1968;183:54-59.
10. Nightingale JM. Microprocessor control of an artificial arm. J Microcomput Appl 1985;8:167-173.
11. Kyberd PJ, Beard DJ, Davey JJ, Morrison DJ. Survey of upper limb prostheses users in Oxfordshire. J Prosthet Orthot 1998;10(4):85-91.
12. Atkins D, Heard DCY, Donovan DH. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet Orthot 1996;8(1):2-11.
13. Fraser CM. An evaluation of the use made of cosmetic and functional prostheses by unilateral upper limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot 1998;22:216-223.
14. Davidson J. A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles, and their abilities. J Hand Ther 2002;28(1):62-70.
15. Millstein SG, Heger H, Hunter GA. Prosthetic use in adult upper limb amputees: a comparison of the body powered and electrically powered prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 1986;10:27-34.
16. Kejlaa GH. Consumer concerns and the functional value of prostheses to upper limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1993;17:157-163.
17. Fraser C. A survey of users of upper limb prostheses. Br J Occup Ther 1993;56(5):166-168.
18. Weaver SA, Lange LR, Vogts VM. Comparison of myoelectric and conventional prostheses for adolescent amputees. Am J Occup Ther 1988;42(2):87-91.
19. Burroughs SF, Brook JA. Patterns of acceptance and rejection of upper limb prostheses. Orthot Prosthet 1985;39(2):40-47.
20. Sörbye R. Upper-limb amputees: Swedish experiences concerning children. In: Atkins DJ, Meier RH, eds. The Comprehensive Management of the Upper-Limb Amputee. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1988:227-239.
21. Heger H, Millstein S, Hunter GA. Electrically powered prostheses for the adult with an upper limb amputation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1985;67(2):278-281.
22. Tversky B. Features of similarity. Psycho! Rev 1977;84(4):327-352.
23. Stephens K, Stephens J, Fairley M. Electronic technology aids UE amputees. Orthotics and Prosthetics Business World 1999;2(1):42-46.
24. Gow D, Douglas W, Geggie C, et al. The development of the Edinburgh Modular Arm System. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H 2001;215:291-298.
25. Poulton A, Kyberd PJ, Gow D. Progress of a modular prosthetic arm. In: Keates S, Langdon P, eds. Universal Access and Assistive Technology. London: Springer; 2002:193-200.