Wireless, soft sensors continuously monitor pressure and temperature at the interface between a residual limb and a prosthesis.

Current upper limb prostheses do not replace the active degrees-of-freedom distal to the elbow inherent to intact physiology. Limited evidence suggests that transradial prosthesis users demonstrate shoulder and trunk movements to compensate for these missing volitional degrees-of-freedom. The purpose of this study was to enhance understanding of the effects of prosthesis use on motor performance by comparing the movement quality of upper body kinematics between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks that reflect activities of daily living.

Ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) are intended to improve toe clearance during swing and ankle position at initial contact (IC) and midstance. Changes that lead to improved ankle-foot kinematics may result in a more biomimetic roll-over shape (ROS). ROS is the effective geometry to which the ankle-foot complex conforms between IC and contralateral IC. An effective ROS during gait may facilitate forward progression. This study investigated the effect of an AFO on ROS in adults with hemiplegia following stroke. Kinematic and force data were recorded from 13 people with hemiplegia and 12 controls. Hemiplegic subjects walked at a self-selected speed with and without an articulated AFO with plantar flexion stop. For the involved limb, the AFO significantly increased the ROS arc length (from 32.6% to 55.7% of foot length [FL]) and arc radius (67.4% to 139.3% of FL) and significantly altered the sagittal plane location of the first center of pressure (COP) point, moving it posterior to the ankle center (-1.2% to -20% of FL) (p < 0.002 for all comparisons). However, when hemiplegic patients walked with an AFO, their mean arc radius was greater, mean arc length less, and the first COP point further posterior than those of control subjects.

Background: Achieving mobility with a prosthesis is a common post‐amputation rehabilitation goal and primary outcome in prosthetic research studies. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) available to measure prosthetic mobility have practical and psychometric limitations that inhibit their use in clinical care and research.Objective: To develop a brief, clinically meaningful, and psychometrically robust PROM to measure prosthetic mobility.Design: A cross‐sectional study was conducted to administer previously developed candidate items to a national sample of lower limb prosthesis users. Items were calibrated to an item response theory model and two fixed‐length short forms were created. Instruments were assessed for readability, effective range of measurement, agreement with the full item bank, ceiling and floor effects, convergent validity, and known groups validity.Setting: Participants were recruited using flyers posted in hospitals and prosthetics clinics across the United States, magazine advertisements, notices posted to consumer websites, and direct mailings.Participants: Adult prosthesis users (N = 1091) with unilateral lower limb amputation due to traumatic or dysvascular causes.Interventions: Not applicable.Main Outcome Measures: Candidate items (N = 105) were administered along with the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Brief Profile, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire – Mobility Subscale, and Activities‐Specific Balance Confidence Scale, and questions created to characterize respondents.Results: A bank of 44 calibrated self‐report items, termed the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS‐M), was produced. Clinical and statistical criteria were used to select items for 7‐ and 12‐item short forms. PLUS‐M instruments had an 8th grade reading level, measured with precision across a wide range of respondents, exhibited little‐to‐no ceiling or floor effects, correlated expectedly with scores from existing PROMs, and differentiated between groups of respondents expected to have different levels of mobility.Conclusion: The PLUS‐M appears to be well suited to measuring prosthetic mobility in people with lower limb amputation. PLUS‐M instruments are recommended for use in clinical and research settings.