Upper extremity prosthetic selection influences loading of transhumeral osseointegrated systems

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 15; no. 8; p. e0237179
• Main Authors: Taylor, Carolyn E, Drew, Alex J, Zhang, Yue, Qiu, Yuqing, Bachus, Kent N, Foreman, K. Bo, Henninger, Heath B
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: San Francisco Public Library of Science 06.08.2020; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Activities of daily living; Amputation; Arm; Artificial arms; Bending moments; Biology and Life Sciences; Biomechanics; Biomedical engineering; Bone-implant interfaces; Complexity; Computer applications; Computer simulation; Engineering and Technology; Epidemiology; Fingers & toes; Funding; Hand; Interface stability; Loading; Mathematical models; Mechanical loading; Mechanical properties; Medical research; Medicine and Health Sciences; Motion capture; Motion perception; Myoelectricity; Orthopedic implants; Osseointegration; Physiological aspects; Prostheses; Prosthetics; R&D; Range of motion; Rehabilitation; Research & development; Software; Supervision; Surgical implants; Veterans; Weight; United States; United States > US; Utah
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237179

Percutaneous osseointegrated (OI) implants are increasingly viable as an alternative to socket suspension of prosthetic limbs. Upper extremity prostheses have also become more complex to better replicate hand and arm function and attempt to recreate pre-amputation functional levels. With more functionality comes heavier devices that put more stress on the bone-implant interface, which could be an issue for implant stability. This study quantified transhumeral loading at defined amputation levels using four simulated prosthetic limb-types: (1) body powered hook, (2) myoelectric hook, (3) myoelectric hand, and (4) advanced prosthetic limb. Computational models were constructed to replicate the weight distribution of each prosthesis type, then applied to motion capture data collected during Advanced Activities of Daily Living (AADLs). For activities that did not include a handheld weight, the body powered prosthesis bending moments were 13-33% (range of means for each activity across amputation levels) of the intact arm moments (reference 100%), torsional moments were 12-15%, and axial pullout forces were 30-40% of the intact case (p[less than or equal to]0.001). The myoelectric hook and hand bending moments were 60-99%, torsional moments were 44-97%, and axial pullout forces were 62-101% of the intact case. The advanced prosthesis bending moments were 177-201%, torsional moments were 164-326%, and axial pullout forces were 133-185% of the intact case (p[less than or equal to]0.001). The addition of a handheld weight for briefcase carry and jug lift activities reduced the overall impact of the prosthetic model itself, where the body powered forces and moments were much closer to those of the intact model, and more complex prostheses further increased forces and moments beyond the intact arm levels. These results reveal a ranked order in loading magnitude according to complexity of the prosthetic device, and highlight the importance of considering the patient's desired terminal device when planning post-operative percutaneous OI rehabilitation and training.