Abstract
The provision of a myoelectric prosthesis for high level upper extremity amputees
requires consideration of a myriad of factors. Although state-of-the-art componentty
can dramatically effect the outcome, other factors left unaddressed can negate any
advantages that new technology canoffer. Many individrials fit with a prosthesis fiom
the humeral neck level and higher often complain that the weight of the prosthesis,
heat build-up while wearing the prosthesis, lack of stability, difficulty in independent
donning, and reduced control of terminal device while in certain planes and body positions
have resulted in reduced wearing times and in many cases discontinuation of prosthetic
use all together. Of course, the factors listed above that lead to reduced wear and
in some cases discontinuation are not comprehensive, but do overwhelmingly categorize
the responses of over 250 high level amputees polled across the United States between
1993-1999. Although a panacea does not exist to completely eliminate the above factors
that lead to discontinuation, substantial success at addressing these concerns can
be found in the use of an interface design. Typical interface designs for high level
amputees can generally be divided into three classes: 1) "Bucket Interface Style"
that completely cover s the effected shoulder and torso often to the midline. The
major disadvantage of this style is overheating of the wearer due to excessive interface
to skin coverage. 2)"Modified Bucket Style" which encompasses the basicdesign of the
"Bucket Interface Design" as it completely encapsulates the shoulder girdle but does
not extend to the midline or inferiorly to capture a majority of the torso. This design
has partial success in the reduction of heat build up experienced by the wearer, but
often results in poor stability and lack of skin to electrode contact whichis manifested
in poor terminal device control in certain planes and body positions. Additionally,
auxiliary harnessing is required for this design which can have a negative impact
on independent donning. 3)"Sander Frame Design" which involves the use of aluminum
struts to reduce heat build up and provide acceptable stability and dorming effort.
This design has not been universally adopted in the United States due to high degree
of fabrication time and skill required. The purpose ofthis paper is to detail the
Microframe Interface Design, a more effective alternative to the three current interface
designs for high level myoelectric prostheses.
FINAL PAPER NOT RECEIVED AT PRESS TIME
Citation
From "MEC 99," Proceedings of the 1999 MyoElectric Controls/Powered Prosthetics Symposium
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada: August, 1999. Copyright University of New Brunswick.
Works are deposited here by their authors, and
represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials
and descriptions may include offensive content.
More info