Advertisement

User experiences of digital prostheses in daily functioning in people with an amputation of thumb or finger

Published:February 25, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2022.01.002

      Highlights

      • This small qualitative study found that finger prostheses can make an important contribution in being able to act autonomously in everyday life. Over time, the need for, or type of digital prosthesis may change. These findings can help practitioners in advising clients regarding the most appropriate digital prosthetic to meet their needs.

      Abstract

      Study Design"

      Qualitative research design using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to interpret users’ experiences with digital prostheses.

      Background

      Digital prostheses are rarely used, and little is known about the experiences of traumatic finger amputees with digital prostheses. When advising patients regarding digital prostheses, it is crucial for professionals to understand users experiences of wearing a digital prosthesis and the meaning attached to wearing a digital prosthesis.

      Purpose of study

      The aim of this study was to explore and understand users experiences of wearing a digital prostheses in daily functioning.

      Methods

      Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The written interview texts were analysed following Interpretative phenomenological analysis guidelines.

      Results

      Four participants were interviewed. They experienced the prostheses as valuable additions to their daily functioning. Three different themes relating to wearing and using digital prostheses emerged from in-depth analysis of the data: How the prosthesis supporting them regaining a ‘grip’ on life, reduced overload on unaffected side and restored body image.

      Conclusions

      This study provides a deeper understanding of the experiences of people with digital amputations who use prostheses. Most importantly, that a prosthesis is of crucial importance for participants to be able to act independently and autonomously as well as to participate in family, work and social environments. This insight will help practitioners when considering, with clients the most appropriate digital prosthesis to meet their goals.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Hand Therapy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Pillet J
        • Didierjean-Pillet A
        • Holcombe LK.
        • et al.
        Aesthetic hand prosthesis: its psychologic and functional potential.
        in: Skirven TR Osterman AL Ferdorczyk JM Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity. Sixth edition ed. Mosby, inc, Philadelphia2011: 1282-1305
        • Alison A
        • Mackinnon SE
        Evaluation of digital prostheses.
        J Hand Surg Am. 1992; 17: 923-926https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-5023(92)90471-z
        • Burger H
        • Maver T
        • Marincek C.
        Partial hand amputation and work.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2007; 29: 1317-1321https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280701320763
        • Murray CD.
        Being like everybody else: the personal meanings of being a prosthesis user.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2009; 31: 573-581https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280802240290
        • Whelan L
        • Flinn S
        • Wagner N
        Individualizing goals for users of externally powered partial hand prostheses.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014; 51: 885-894https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.08.0181
        • Graham E.M.
        • Hendrycks R.
        • Baschuk C.M.
        • et al.
        Restoring form and function to the partial hand amputee: prosthetic options from the fingertip to the palm.
        Hand Clinics. 2021; 37: 167-187
        • Kuret Z.
        • Burger H.
        • Vidmar G.
        • Maver T.
        Adjustment to finger amputation and silicone finger prosthesis use.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2019; 41: 1307-1312
        • Katz P.P.
        • Morris A.
        • Yelin E.H.
        Prevalence and predictors of disability in valued life activities among individuals with rheumatoid arthritis.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 2006; 65: 763-769
        • Schultz AE
        • Baade SP
        • Kuiken TA.
        Expert opinions on success factors for upper-limb prostheses.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2007; 44: 483-489https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2006.08.0087
        • Jones L.A.
        • Lederman S.J.
        Human hand function.
        Oxford University Press, New York2006
        • World Health Organization
        International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF.
        World Health Organization, Geneva2001
        • Hopper RA
        • Griffiths S
        • Murray J
        • et al.
        Factors influencing use of digital prostheses in workers' compensation recipients.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2000; 25: 80-85https://doi.org/10.1053/jhsu.2000.jhsu025a0080
        • Kuret Z
        • Burger H
        • Vidmar G
        • et al.
        Impact of silicone prosthesis on hand function, grip power and grip-force tracking ability after finger amputation.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016; 40: 744-750https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364615596064
        • Lifchez SD
        • Marchant-Hanson J
        • Matloub HS
        • et al.
        Functional improvement with digital prosthesis use after multiple digit amputations.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2005; 30: 790-794https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2005.02.012
        • O'Farrell DA
        • Montella BJ
        • Bahor JL
        • et al.
        Long-term follow-up of 50 Duke silicone prosthetic fingers.
        J Hand Surg Br. 1996; 21: 696-700https://doi.org/10.1016/s0266-7681(96)80166-5
        • Pereira BP
        • Kour AK
        • Leow EL
        • et al.
        Benefits and use of digital prostheses.
        J Hand Surg Am. 1996; 21: 222-228https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-5023(96)80104-3
        • Smit JA
        • Flowers P
        • Larkin M.
        Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Theory, Method and Research.
        reprinted edition ed. SAGE Publications Ltd., London2012
        • Clarke C.
        An introduction to interpretative phenomenological analysis: a useful approach for occupational therapy research.
        Br J Occup Ther. 2009; 72: 37-39
        • Smith JA
        • Flowers P
        • Larkin M.
        Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis; Theory, method and research.
        SAGE Publications Ltd., London2009
        • Aveyard H
        • Sharp P.
        A beginner's guide to evidence based practice in health and social care.
        Second edition ed. Open University Press, Maidenhead2013
        • Denscombe M.
        The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects.
        Fifth ed. Open University Press., Maidenhead2014
        • Widehammar C
        • Pettersson I
        • Janeslatt G
        • et al.
        The influence of environment: experiences of users of myoelectric arm prosthesis-a qualitative study.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018; 42: 28-36https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364617704801
        • Wijk U
        • Carlsson I.
        Forearm amputees' views of prosthesis use and sensory feedback.
        J Hand Ther. 2015; 28: 269-277https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2015.01.013
        • Biddiss E
        • Chau T.
        Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 86: 977-987https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181587f6c
        • Biddiss EA
        • Chau TT.
        Multivariate prediction of upper limb prosthesis acceptance or rejection.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2008; 3: 181-192https://doi.org/10.1080/17483100701869826
        • Cardol M
        • De Jong BA
        • Ward CD
        On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2002; 24: 970-974https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280210151996
        • Hammel J
        • Magasi S
        • Heinemann A
        • et al.
        What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with disabilities.
        Disability and rehabilitation. 2008; 30: 1445-1460
        • Murray CD
        • Forshaw MJ.
        The experience of amputation and prosthesis use for adults: a metasynthesis.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2013; 35: 1133-1142https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.723790
        • Hoogsteyns M
        • Van Der Horst H.
        Wearing the arm (or not). Reconceptualising notions of in-and exclusion in disability Studies.
        Scand J Disabil Res. 2013; 15: 58-69
        • Krantz O.
        Assistive devices utilisation in activities of everyday life–a proposed framework of understanding a user perspective.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012; 7: 189-198
        • Burger H
        • Vidmar G.
        A survey of overuse problems in patients with acquired or congenital upper limb deficiency.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016; 40: 497-502https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364615584658
        • Ostlie K
        • Franklin RJ
        • Skjeldal OH
        • et al.
        Musculoskeletal pain and overuse syndromes in adult acquired major upper-limb amputees.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: 1967-1973https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.06.026
        • Wanamaker AB
        • Whelan LR
        • Farley J
        • et al.
        Biomechanical analysis of users of multi-articulating externally powered prostheses with and without their device.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019; 43: 618-628https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364619871185
        • Bouma SE
        • Postema SG
        • Bongers RM
        • et al.
        Musculoskeletal complaints in individuals with finger or partial hand amputations in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2018; 40: 1146-1153https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1289418
        • Jones L
        • Davidson J.
        Save that arm: a study of problems in the remaining arm of unilateral upper limb amputees.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 1999; 23: 55-58
        • Postema SG
        • Bongers RM
        • Brouwers MA
        • et al.
        Musculoskeletal complaints in transverse upper limb reduction deficiency and amputation in The Netherlands: prevalence, predictors, and effect on health.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016; 97: 1137-1145https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.01.031
        • Saradjian A
        • Thompson AR
        • Datta D
        The experience of men using an upper limb prosthesis following amputation: positive coping and minimizing feeling different.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2008; 30: 871-883https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280701427386
        • Bowling A.
        Research methods in health: investigating health and health services.
        Fourth edition ed. Open University Press, Maidenhead2014

      JHT Read for Credit

      Quiz: # 848

      Record your answers on the Return Answer Form found on the tear-out coupon at the back of this issue or to complete online and use a credit card, go to JHTReadforCredit.com. There is only one best answer for each question.
      • # 1.
        The study design is
        • a.
          RCTs
        • b.
          case report
        • c.
          qualitative
        • d.
          case series
      • # 2.
        The study focuses on
        • a.
          user experiences
        • b.
          clinical problems of single digit prosthetic use
        • c.
          therapists’ impressions of patient experiences
        • d.
          problems with proper fitting of single digit prosthetics
      • # 3.
        Content material was gleaned through
        • a.
          chart reviews
        • b.
          therapist interviews
        • c.
          literature searches
        • d.
          patient interviews
      • # 4.
        At the top of the list of patient concerns was
        • a.
          fit and comfort of the prosthesis
        • b.
          esthetics of the prosthesis
        • c.
          utility of the prosthesis
        • d.
          cost of the prosthesis
      • # 5.
        Autonomy in daily life was voiced repeatedly
        • a.
          not true
        • b.
          true
      When submitting to the HTCC for re-certification, please batch your JHT RFC certificates in groups of 3 or more to get full credit.