Study of Compensatory Motion While Using an Upper Limb Prosthesis

NCT00417352 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: Compensatory motion
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 17
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Current improvements of the design of the upper limb prosthesis include advanced technology in control systems and electronic circuitry that mimic human motion and improve function of the prosthesis. Often times these improvements require large amounts of power, circuitry and excess mass distally along the prosthesis that may require greater effort from the user. Poor function of an upper limb prosthesis may cause awkward compensatory motion. Aberrant movements, such as these compensatory movements are known to cause greater stress to remaining joints. Amputees are forced to decide if the extra function provided by the advanced electronics is worth carrying the extra mass which may cause fatigue, socket issues and greater stress on the remaining joints. An example is the wrist rotator component of an upper limb prosthesis which may allow greater function and reduce compensatory motion, but adds mass distally, potentially causing greater torques on remaining joints. GOALS OF THE STUDY: There are two main goals of this study:

1. 1.to determine the impact of an upper limb prosthesis without a wrist rotator on the compensatory motion and torques in the remaining joints during common tasks
2. 2.to determine the impact of the location (distally or proximally) of a wrist rotator on a upper limb prosthesis on the compensatory motion during common tasks
3. 3.There will be a statistically significant difference in range of motion of the upper limb joints between healthy subjects, braced subjects and upper limb amputees during four common tasks.
4. 4.There will be a statistically significant difference in joint upper limb joint torques between healthy subjects, braced subjects and upper limb amputees during three common tasks.
5. 5.There will be a statistically significant difference in upper limb angles and joint torques between mass added distally and mass added proximally during common tasks.

Conditions

Prosthesis

Keywords

no intervention; bracing restricted forearm and wrist movement; bracing with added mass near elbow; bracing with added mass near wrist

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (7)

• shoulder abduction

• shoulder flexion

• elbow flexion

• shoulder joint force

• should joint torque

• elbow joint force

• elbow joint torque

Interventions

Brace DEVICE

Added mass DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 60 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• ages 18-60 years old
• Control group: normal, healthy volunteers
• Amputee group: unilateral, transradial myoelectric prosthesis users

You may not qualify if:

• elderly \> 60
• children \< 18
• pregnant women
• persons with shoulder impairments, injuries, or problems
• bilateral upper limb amputees

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of South Florida: lead

Study Sites (1)

University of South Florida

Tampa, Florida, 33620, United States

Location

MeSH Terms

Interventions

Braces

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Orthotic Devices; Orthopedic Equipment; Surgical Equipment; Equipment and Supplies

Study Officials

• Stephanie L Carey, PhD

  University of South Florida

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Intervention Model: SINGLE GROUP
• Sponsor Type: OTHER

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: December 28, 2006
• First Posted: January 1, 2007
• Study Start: December 1, 2006
• Primary Completion: December 1, 2007
• Study Completion: May 1, 2008
• Last Updated: August 6, 2010

Record last verified: 2006-12

Locations

US (1)