User ratings of prosthetic usability and satisfaction in VA study to optimize DEKA arm

Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 15-26

  Resnik, Linda ^a,b   Borgia, Matthew ^a  

^a PROVIDENCE VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Amputation; Assistive technology; DEKA Arm; Optimization; Outcome assessment; Prosthesis; Satisfaction; Upper limb; Usability; Veterans

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; OPTIMIZATION; PROSTHETICS;

AMPUTATION; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; DEKA ARM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SATISFACTION; UPPER LIMBS; USABILITY; VETERANS;

USABILITY ENGINEERING;

ADULT; AESTHETIC SATISFACTION; AGED; ARM PROSTHESIS; ARTICLE; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVICE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER INTERFACE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEKA ARM; ELECTRIC BATTERY; FEMALE; FUNCTION TEST; HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE; HUMAN; HUMERAL CONFIGURATION; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIAL CONFIGURATION; RATING SCALE; SATISFACTION WITH LIFE SCALE; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SHOULDER CONFIGURATION; TRAINING; TRINITY AMPUTATION AND PROSTHESIS EXPERIENCE SCALE; USABILITY TEST; VETERAN; AMPUTATION; ARM; EVALUATION STUDY; GOVERNMENT; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; LIMB PROSTHESIS; MIDDLE AGED; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESIS; REHABILITATION; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION;

ADULT; AMPUTATION; ARM; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOVEMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; VETERANS;

EID: 84899131245     PISSN: 07487711     EISSN: 19381352     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2013.02.0056     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector Gen-eral. Healthcare inspection: Prosthetic limb care in VA facilities. Report No. 11-02138-116. Washington (DC): VA Office of Inspector General; 2012.
2. Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper limb prosthesis use and aban-donment: A survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31(3):236-57. [PMID:17979010] http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03093640600994581
3. Wright TW, Hagen AD, Wood MB. Prosthetic usage in major upper extremity amputations. J Hand Surg Am. 1995; 20(4):619-22. [PMID:7594289] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0363-5023(05)80278-3
4. Atkins DJ, Heard DC, Donovan WH. Epidemiologic over-view of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet Orthot. 1996;8(1):2-11.
5. Dakpa R, Heger, H. Prosthetic management and training of adult upper limb amputees. Curr Orthopaed. 1997;11(3): 193-202.
6. Lake C, Dodson R. Progressive upper limb prosthetics. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2006;17(1):49-72. [PMID:16517345] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2005.10.004
7. Herberts P, Körner L, Caine K, Wensby L. Rehabilitation of unilateral below-elbow amputees with myoelectric pros-theses. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1980;12(3):123-28. [PMID:7209446]
8. MaGuire MT. Empowering prosthetics: A team approach to prosthetics and limb loss. Rehabil Manag. 2008;2008:4.
9. Bhaskaranand K, Bhat AK, Acharya KN. Prosthetic rehabili-tation in traumatic upper limb amputees (an Indian perspec-tive). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123(7):363-66. [PMID:12827395] http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-003-0546-4
10. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Research in P&O: Are we addressing clinically relevant problems? Report on the State-of-the-Science Meeting in Prosthetics and Orthotics. Chicago (IL): Northwestern Uni-versity; 2006.
11. Defense Sciences Office. Revolutionizing prosthetics [Internet]. Arlington (VA): Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; 2013 [cited 2012 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www.darpa.mil/our_work/dso/programs/ revolutionizing_prosthetics.aspx
12. Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. The DEKA Arm: Its fea-tures, functionality, and evolution during the Veterans Affairs Study to optimize the DEKA Arm. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013 Oct 22. Epub ahead of print. [PMID:24150930]
13. Resnik L, Etter K, Klinger SL, Kambe C. Using virtual real-ity environment to facilitate training with advanced upper-limb prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):707-18. [PMID:21938657] http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2010.07.0127
14. Altobelli DE, Coulter S, Perry NC. Design considerations in upper extremity prostheses. 2011 Myoelectric Controls/ Powered Prosthetics Symposium; 2011 Aug 14-19; Frederic-ton, Canada.
15. Alley RD, Williams TW 3rd, Albuquerque MJ, Altobelli DE. Prosthetic sockets stabilized by alternating areas of tis-sue compression and release. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011; 48(6):679-96. [PMID:21938655] http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2009.12.0197
16. Desmond DM, MacLachlan M. Factor structure of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES) with individuals with acquired upper limb ampu-tations. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(7):506-13. [PMID:15973087] http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.phm.0000166885.16180.63