Management of Upper Limb Amputation Rehabilitation: Synopsis of the 2022 US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline for Acquired Amputation.

ABSTRACT: Upper limb amputation can result in significant functional impairment necessitating a comprehensive rehabilitation approach throughout the continuum of care. In 2022, the Departments of Veteran Affairs and Defense completed an updated clinical practice guideline for the management of upper limb amputation rehabilitation. This practice guideline was developed by a workgroup of subject-matter experts from a variety of disciplines. Twelve key questions were developed by the workgroup using the PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, timing of outcomes measurement, and setting) format to establish the scope of the literature review. Eighteen recommendations were developed through extensive review of the available literature and use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. The strength of each recommendation was determined based on the quality of the research evidence and the additional domains of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. Of the 18 recommendations, 4 were found to have sufficient evidence to suggest for use of a particular rehabilitation management strategy. Thus, the 2022 Department of Veteran Affairs and Department of Defense clinical practice guideline provides updated, evidence-based information on the care and rehabilitation of persons with upper limb amputation. However, a significant lack of high-quality evidence in upper limb amputation rehabilitation limited evidence-based clinical guidance to assist healthcare providers in managing this population.

Use of the DEKA Arm for amputees with brachial plexus injury: A case series.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with upper limb amputation and brachial plexus injuries have high rates of prosthesis rejection. Study purpose is to describe experiences of subjects with transhumeral amputation and brachial plexus injury, who were fit with, and trained to use, a DEKA Arm. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study utilizing qualitative (e.g. interview, survey) and quantitative data (e.g. self-report and performance measures). Subject 1, a current prosthesis user, had a shoulder arthrodesis. Subject 2, not a prosthesis user, had a subluxed shoulder. Both were trained in laboratory and participated in a trial of home use. Descriptive analyses of processes and outcomes were conducted. RESULTS: Subject 1 was fitted with the transhumeral configuration (HC) DEKA Arm using a compression release stabilized socket. He had 12 hours of prosthetic training and participated in all home study activities. Subject 1 had improved dexterity and prosthetic satisfaction with the DEKA Arm and reported better quality of life (QOL) at the end of participation. Subject 2 was fit with the shoulder configuration (SC) DEKA Arm using a modified X-frame socket. He had 30 hours of training and participated in 3 weeks of home activities. He reported less functional disability at the end of training as compared to baseline, but encountered personal problems and exacerbation of PTSD symptoms and withdrew from home use portion at 3 weeks. Both subjects reported functional benefits from use, and expressed a desire to receive a DEKA Arm in the future. DISCUSSION: This paper reported on two different strategies for prosthetic fitting and their outcomes. The advantages and limitations of each approach were discussed. CONCLUSION: Use of both the HC and SC DEKA Arm for patients with TH amputation and brachial plexus injury was reported. Lessons learned may be instructive to clinicians considering prosthetic choices for future cases.

Appropriateness of advanced upper limb prosthesis prescription for a patient with cognitive impairment: a case report.

PURPOSE: To describe a participant with scapulo-thoracic amputation and cognitive impairment trained to use the DEKA Arm and discuss factors relevant to the determination that he was not an appropriate candidate for independent home use of the device. METHOD: The participant underwent 40 h of in-laboratory training with the DEKA Arm Advanced Upper Limb Prosthesis. Pre-training neuropsychological measures of cognition were collected. Qualitative and quantitative data related to functional performance, quality of life and pain were collected after 10 h of training, and at the conclusion of training. Using a constant comparative approach, data were binned into major themes; elements within each theme were identified. RESULTS: Six themes were relevant to the determination that the participant was inappropriate for home use of the DEKA Arm: physical and mental health; learning, memory and cognition; adult role function; functional performance; user safety and judgement and capacity for independent device use. Issues contraindicating unsupervised device use included: uncontrolled health symptoms, poor knowledge application, safety concerns, absenteeism and performance degradation under stress. CONCLUSION: The findings have implications for training with and prescription of the DEKA Arm and other complex upper limb prostheses. Further research is needed to develop a model to guide prescription of technologically complex upper limb prostheses. Implications for Rehabilitation Advanced upper limb prostheses, like the DEKA Arm, promise greater functionality, but also may be cognitively demanding, raising questions of when, and if, prescription is appropriate for patients with cognitive impairment. At this time, no formal criteria exist to guide prescription of advanced upper limb prostheses. Each clinical team applies their own informal standards in decision-making. In this case report, we described six factors that were considered in determining whether or not a research participant, with scapulo-thoracic amputation and cognitive impairment was appropriate for home use of a complex upper limb prosthesis. The findings have implications for training with and prescription of the DEKA Arm, and highlights the need for further research to develop prescription guidelines for advanced assistive devices.

Comparison of transhumeral socket designs utilizing patient assessment and in vivo skeletal and socket motion tracking: a case study.

PURPOSE: This case study compares the impact of two prosthetic socket designs, a "traditional" transhumeral (TH) socket design and a Compression Released Stabilized (CRS) socket. METHODS: A CRS socket was compared to the existing socket of two persons with transhumeral amputation. Comparisons included assessments of patient comfort and satisfaction with fit, as well as dynamic kinematic assessment using a novel high-speed, high-resolution, bi-plane video radiography system (XROMM, for X-ray Reconstruction of Moving Morphology). RESULTS: Subjects were more satisfied with the comfort of the traditional sockets, although they had positive impressions about aspects of the fit and style of the CRS socket, and thought that it provided better control. Dynamic kinematic assessment revealed that the CRS socket provided better control of the residual limb within the socket, and had less slippage as compared to a traditional TH socket design. CONCLUSIONS: The TH CRS socket provided better control of the residual limb within the socket, and had less slippage. However, participants were less satisfied with the comfort and overall utility of the CRS socket, and stated that additional fitting visits/modifications to the CRS socket were needed. It is possible that satisfaction with the CRS socket may have improved with prosthetic adjustment and more acclimation time. Implications for Rehabilitation A comfortable, good fitting prosthetic socket is the key factor in determining how long (or if) an upper limb amputee can tolerate wearing a prosthesis. This case series was a comparison of two socket designs, a 'traditional' socket design and a Compression Released Stabilized (CRS) socket design in persons with transhumeral amputation. The CRS socket provided better control of the residual limb within the socket, and had less slippage. However, its tightness made it more difficult to don. Both subjects were less satisfied with the comfort and overall utility of the CRS socket. However, satisfaction might have been improved with additional fitting visits and more acclimation time.

Controlling a multi-degree of freedom upper limb prosthesis using foot controls: user experience.

PURPOSE: The DEKA Arm, a pre-commercial upper limb prosthesis, funded by the DARPA Revolutionizing Prosthetics Program, offers increased degrees of freedom while requiring a large number of user control inputs to operate. To address this challenge, DEKA developed prototype foot controls. Although the concept of utilizing foot controls to operate an upper limb prosthesis has been discussed for decades, only small-sized studies have been performed and no commercial product exists. The purpose of this paper is to report amputee user perspectives on using three different iterations of foot controls to operate the DEKA Arm. METHOD: Qualitative data was collected from 36 subjects as part of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Study to Optimize the DEKA Arm through surveys, interviews, audio memos, and videotaped sessions. Three major, interrelated themes were identified using the constant comparative method: attitudes towards foot controls, psychomotor learning and physical experience of using foot controls. RESULTS: Feedback about foot controls was generally positive for all iterations. The final version of foot controls was viewed most favorably. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that foot controls are a viable control option that can enable control of a multifunction upper limb prosthesis (the DEKA Arm). IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Multifunction upper limb prostheses require many user control inputs to operate. Foot controls offer additional control input options for such advanced devices, yet have had minimal study. This study found that foot controls were a viable option for controlling multifunction upper limb prostheses. Most of the 36 subjects in this study were willing to adopt foot controls to control the multiple degrees of freedom of the DEKA Arm. With training and practice, all users were able to develop the psychomotor skills needed to successfully operate food controls. Some had initial difficulty, but acclimated over time.

Advanced upper limb prosthetic devices: implications for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation.

The number of catastrophic injuries caused by improvised explosive devices in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars has increased public, legislative, and research attention to upper limb amputation. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has partnered with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and DEKA Integrated Solutions to optimize the function of an advanced prosthetic arm system that will enable greater independence and function. In this special communication, we examine current practices in prosthetic rehabilitation including trends in adoption and use of prosthetic devices, financial considerations, and the role of rehabilitation team members in light of our experiences with a prototype advanced upper limb prosthesis during a VA study to optimize the device. We discuss key challenges in the adoption of advanced prosthetic technology and make recommendations for service provision and use of advanced upper limb prosthetics. Rates of prosthetic rejection are high among upper limb amputees. However, these rates may be reduced with sufficient training by a highly specialized, multidisciplinary team of clinicians, and a focus on patient education and empowerment throughout the rehabilitation process. There are significant challenges emerging that are unique to implementing the use of advanced upper limb prosthetic technology, and a lack of evidence to establish clinical guidelines regarding prosthetic prescription and treatment. Finally, we make recommendations for future research to aid in the identification of best practices and development of policy decisions regarding insurance coverage of prosthetic rehabilitation.