Comparison of DEKA Arm and Body-Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis Joint Kinematics.
Conor Bloomer, Kimberly L Kontson
PMID 33543084WHAT IT FOUND
Able-bodied users wearing a DEKA Arm bypass took significantly longer to complete hand tasks than those using a body-powered prosthesis, with times up to 328% higher.
However, the DEKA group moved their joints closer to normal ranges. Neither device proved universally faster or smoother.
Key findings
01Task completion times were significantly higher for DEKA users across all tests, with the largest relative difference being 328% higher for simulated feeding.
02DEKA users generally exhibited maximum and mean joint angles closer to neutral positions compared to body-powered users, indicating different movement approaches.
03In the simulated feeding task, DEKA users showed significantly greater elbow range of motion (38.14 degrees) compared to body-powered users (28.71 degrees).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used bypass prostheses on able-bodied participants, not actual amputees, so findings may not directly translate to clinical populations. The sample size was small (14 participants), limiting the generalizability of the results. Participants had no previous prosthesis experience, which may affect how they adapted to the devices compared to experienced users.
Declared interests
The DEKA Arm bypass was provided by DEKA and Next Step Bionics. The body-powered bypass was provided by Arm Dynamics.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the DEKA Arm is superior or inferior based solely on these results. The DEKA group was slower but moved more naturally, while the body-powered group was faster but used more compensatory joint angles. Neither outcome is clearly better without knowing the patient's specific goals.