Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,111

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years

Biddiss, Elaine A., Chau, Tom T.·2007·Prosthetics & Orthotics International
DOI 10.1080/03093640600994581
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This review presents an analytical and comparative survey of upper limb prosthesis acceptance and abandonment as documented over the past 25 years, detailing areas of consumer dissatisfaction and ongoing technological advancements. English-language articles were identified in a search of Ovid, PubMed, and ISI Web of Science (1980 until February 2006) for key words upper limb and prosthesis. Articles focused on upper limb prostheses and addressing: (i) Factors associated with abandonment; (ii) Rejection rates; (iii) Functional analyses and patterns of wear; and (iv) Consumer satisfaction, were extracted with the exclusion of those detailing tools for outcome measurement, case studies, and medical procedures. Approximately 200 articles were included in the review process with 40 providing rates of prosthesis rejection. Quantitative measures of population characteristics, study methodology, and prostheses in use were extracted from each article. Mean rejection rates of 45% and 35% were observed in the literature for body-powered and electric prostheses respectively in pediatric populations. Significantly lower rates of rejection for both body-powered (26%) and electric (23%) devices were observed in adult populations while the average incidence of non-wear was similar for pediatric (16%) and adult (20%) populations. Documented rates of rejection exhibit a wide range of variance, possibly due to the heterogeneous samples involved and methodological differences between studies. Future research should comprise of controlled, multifactor studies adopting standardized outcome measures in order to promote comprehensive understanding of the factors affecting prosthesis use and abandonment. An enhanced understanding of these factors is needed to optimize prescription practices, guide design efforts, and satiate demand for evidence-based measures of intervention.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03093640600994581

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 78

  1. Ajiboye, 2005, A heuristic fuzzy logic approach to EMG pattern recognition for multifunctional prosthesis control, IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 13, 280, 10.1109/TNSRE.2005.847357 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Atkins, 1996, Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities, J Prosthet Orthot, 8, 2, 10.1097/00008526-199600810-00003 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Ballance, 1989, Factors affecting myoelectric prosthetic use and wearing patterns in the juvenile unilateral below-elbow amputee, Can J Occup Ther, 56, 132, 10.1177/000841748905600307 · DOI
  4. Berke, 1991, Establishing parameters affecting the use of myoelectric prostheses in children: A preliminary investigation, J Prosthet Orthot, 3, 162, 10.1097/00008526-199100340-00009 · DOI
  5. Bhaskaranand, 2003, Prosthetic rehabilitation in traumatic upper limb amputees (an Indian perspective), Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 123, 363, 10.1007/s00402-003-0546-4 · DOI
  6. Branemark, 2001, Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: A review, J Rehabil Res Dev, 38, 175
  7. Burger, 1994, Upper limb prosthetic use in Slovenia, Prosthet Orthot Int, 18, 25, 10.3109/03093649409164667 · DOI
  8. Caldwell, 2002, Biomimetic actuators in prosthetic and rehabilitation applications, Technol Health Care, 10, 107, 10.3233/THC-2002-10203 · DOI
  9. Carpaneto, 2003, A sensorized thumb for force closed-loop control of hand neuroprostheses, IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 11, 346, 10.1109/TNSRE.2003.819938 · DOI
  10. Carrozza, 2004, The SPRING hand: Development of a self-adaptive prosthesis for restoring natural grasping, Autonomous Robots, 16, 125, 10.1023/B:AURO.0000016863.48502.98 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Crandall, 2002, Pediatric unilateral below-elbow amputees: Retrospective analysis of 34 patients given multiple prosthetic options, J Pediatr Orthop, 22, 380, 10.1097/01241398-200205000-00023 · DOI
  12. Cranny, 2005, Thick-film force and slip sensors for a prosthetic hand, Sens Actuators A Phys, 123 – 124, 162, 10.1016/j.sna.2005.02.015 · DOI
  13. Cupo, 1998, Clinical evaluation of a new, above-elbow, body-powered prosthetic arm: A final report, J Rehabil Res Develop, 35, 431
  14. Dalsey, 1989, Myoelectric prosthetic replacement in the upper-extremity amputee, Orthop Rev, 18, 697
  15. Datta, 1989, Myoelectric prostheses for below-elbow amputees: The Trent experience, Int Disabil Stud, 11, 167, 10.3109/03790798909166670 · DOI
  16. Datta, 2004, Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency-acquired and congenital, Clin Rehabil, 18, 172, 10.1191/0269215504cr716oa · DOI · Paper page
  17. Davidson, 2002, A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles, and their abilities, J Hand Ther, 15, 62, 10.1053/hanthe.2002.v15.01562 · DOI
  18. De Laurentis, 2002, Mechanical design of a shape memory alloy actuated prosthetic hand, Technol Health Care, 10, 91, 10.3233/THC-2002-10202 · DOI
  19. Dechev, 2001, Multiple finger, passive adaptive grasp prosthetic hand, Mech Mach Theory, 36, 1157, 10.1016/S0094-114X(01)00035-0 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Del Cura, 2003, Study of the different types of actuators and mechanisms for upper limb prostheses, Artif Organs, 27, 506
  21. Desmond, 2005, Factor structure of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES) with individuals with acquired upper limb amputations, Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 84, 506, 10.1097/01.phm.0000166885.16180.63 · DOI
  22. Dhillon, 2005, Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm, IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 13, 468, 10.1109/TNSRE.2005.856072 · DOI · Paper page
  23. dos Santos, 2003, The application of shape memory actuators in anthropomorphic upper limb prostheses, Artif Organs, 27, 473, 10.1046/j.1525-1594.2003.07242.x · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1594.2003.07242.x
  24. Dudkiewicz, 2004, Evaluation of prosthetic usage in upper limb amputees, Disabil Rehabil, 26, 60, 10.1080/09638280410001645094 · DOI
  25. Durance, 1988, Upper limb amputees: A clinic profile, Int Disabil Stud, 10, 68, 10.3109/09638288809164107 · doi:10.3109/09638288809164107
  26. Fernandez, 2000, Factors conditioning the return to work of upper limb amputees in Asturias, Spain, Prosthet Orthot Int, 24, 143, 10.1080/03093640008726537 · DOI
  27. Fraser, 1993, A survey of users of upper limb prostheses, Br J Occup Ther, 56, 166, 10.1177/030802269305600503 · DOI
  28. Fraser, 1998, An evaluation of the use made of cosmetic and functional prostheses by unilateral upper limb amputees, Prosthet Orthot Int, 22, 216, 10.3109/03093649809164486 · DOI
  29. Gaine, 1997, Upper limb traumatic amputees: Review of prosthetic use, J Hand Surg, 22B, 73, 10.1016/S0266-7681(97)80023-X · DOI
  30. Glynn, 1986, Management of the upper-limb-deficient child with a powered prosthetic device, Clin Orthop, 209, 202, 10.1097/00003086-198608000-00029 · DOI
  31. Gow, 2001, The development of the Edinburgh modular arm system, J Eng Mech, 215H, 291
  32. Hacking, 1997, Long-term outcome of upper limb prosthetic use in the Netherlands, Eur J Phys Med Rehabil, 7, 179
  33. Hagberg, 2005, Socket versus bone-anchored trans-femoral prostheses: hip range of motion and sitting comfort, Prosthet Orthot Int, 29, 153, 10.1080/03093640500238014 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Herbert, 2005, A preliminary investigation into the development of 3-D printing of prosthetic sockets, J Rehabil Res Dev, 42, 141, 10.1682/JRRD.2004.08.0134 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Heger, 1985, Electrically powered prostheses for the adult with an upper limb amputation, J Bone Joint Surg Br, 67, 278, 10.1302/0301-620X.67B2.3980541 · DOI
  36. Herberts, 1980, Rehabilitation of unilateral below-elbow amputees with myoelectric prostheses, Scand J Rehabil Med, 12, 123
  37. Hermansson, 2005, Psychosocial adjustment in Swedish children with upper-limb reduction deficiency and a myoelectric prosthetic hand, Acta Paediatr, 94, 479, 10.1080/08035250410022512 · doi:10.1080/08035250410022512
  38. Huang, 2001, Acquired limb deficiencies. 3. Prosthetic components, prescriptions, and indications, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 82, S17, 10.1016/S0003-9993(01)80032-0 · DOI
  39. Huang, 2005, A Gaussian mixture model based classification scheme for myoelectric control of powered upper limb prostheses, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 52, 1801, 10.1109/TBME.2005.856295 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Ivko, 1999, Independence through humeral rotation in the conventional transhumeral prosthetic design, J Prosthet Orthot, 11, 20, 10.1097/00008526-199901110-00006 · doi:10.1097/00008526-199901110-00006
  41. Kejlaa, 1993, Consumer concerns and the functional value of prostheses to upper limb amputees, Prosthet Orthot Int, 17, 157, 10.3109/03093649309164376 · DOI
  42. Kruger, 1993, Myoelectric and body-powered prostheses, J Pediatr Orthop, 13, 68, 10.1097/01241398-199301000-00014 · DOI
  43. Kuiken, 2004, The use of targeted muscle reinnervation for improved myoelectric prosthesis control in a bilateral shoulder disarticulation amputee, Prosthet Orthot Int, 28, 245, 10.3109/03093640409167756 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Kyberd, 1998, A survey of upper limb prosthesis users in Oxfordshire, J Prosthet Orthot, 10, 85, 10.1097/00008526-199801040-00004 · DOI
  45. Kyberd, 2001, The design of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: A study of the Southampton hand, Robotica, 19, 593, 10.1017/S0263574701003538 · DOI
  46. Lake, 2003, Comparative analysis of microprocessors in upper limb prosthetics, J Prosthet Orthot, 15, 48, 10.1097/00008526-200304000-00004 · DOI
  47. LeBlanc, 1988, Use of prosthetic prehensors, Prosthet Orthot Int, 12, 152, 10.3109/03093648809079399 · doi:10.3109/03093648809079399
  48. Leow, 2001, Esthetic prostheses in minor and major upper limb amputations, Hand Clin, 17, 489, 10.1016/S0749-0712(21)00527-8 · doi:10.1016/s0749-0712(21)00527-8
  49. Light, 2000, Development of a lightweight and adaptable multiple-axis hand prosthesis, Med Eng Phys, 22, 679, 10.1016/S1350-4533(01)00017-0 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Melendez, 1988, Survey of arm amputees not wearing prostheses: Implications for research and service, J Assoc Child Prosthet Orthot Clin, 23, 62
  51. Mendez, 1985, Evaluation of a myoelectric hand prosthesis for children with a below-elbow absence, Prosthet Orthot Int, 9, 137, 10.3109/03093648509164725 · DOI
  52. Menkveld, 1987, Age-appropriateness of myoelectric prosthetic fitting, J Assoc Child Prosthet Orthot Clin, 22, 60
  53. Millstein, 1986, Prosthetic use in adult upper limb amputees: A comparison of the body powered and electrically powered prostheses, Prosthet Orthot Int, 10, 27, 10.3109/03093648609103076 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Nishikawa, 2000, On-line learning based electromyogram to forearm motion classifier with motor skill evaluation, JSME Int J Ser C, 43, 906, 10.1299/jsmec.43.906 · DOI
  55. Northmore-Ball, 1980, The below-elbow myo-electric prosthesis: A comparison of the Otto Bock myo-electric prosthesis with the hook and functional hand, J Bone Joint Surg, 62B, 363, 10.1302/0301-620X.62B3.7410469 · DOI
  56. Pillet, 2001, Aesthetic hand prosthesis: Gadget or therapy? Presentation of a new classification, J Hand Surg, 26B, 523, 10.1054/jhsb.2001.0658 · DOI
  57. Pinzur, 1994, Functional outcome following traumatic upper limb amputation and prosthetic limb fitting, J Hand Surg, 19A, 836, 10.1016/0363-5023(94)90197-X · doi:10.1016/0363-5023(94)90197-x
  58. Pons, 2002, High torque ultrasonic motors for hand prosthetics: Current status and trends, Technol Heath Care, 10, 2
  59. Pons, 2005, Objectives and technological approach to the development of the multifunctional MANUS upper limb prosthesis, Robotica, 23, 301, 10.1017/S0263574704001328 · DOI
  60. Postema, 1999, Prosthesis rejection in children with a unilateral congenital arm defect, Clin Rehabil, 13, 243, 10.1177/026921559901300308 · DOI
  61. Pruitt, 1997, Prosthesis satisfaction outcome measurement in pediatric limb deficiency, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 78, 750, 10.1016/S0003-9993(97)90084-8 · doi:10.1016/s0003-9993(97)90084-8
  62. Reid, 1987, Survey of juvenile hand amputees, J Assoc Child Prosthet Orthot Clin, 22, 51
  63. Routhier, 2001, Clinical results of an investigation of paediatric upper limb myoelectric prosthesis fitting at the Quebec Rehabilitation Institute, Prosthet Orthot Int, 25, 119, 10.1080/03093640108726585 · DOI
  64. Scotland, 1983, A long-term review of children with congenital and acquired upper limb deficiency, J Bone Joint Surg, 65B, 346, 10.1302/0301-620X.65B3.6841409 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.65b3.6841409
  65. Sibelius, 2005a, Classification of motor commands using a modified self-organising feature map, Med Eng Phys, 27, 403, 10.1016/j.medengphy.2004.09.008 · DOI
  66. Sibelius, 2005b, Refined myoelectric control in below-elbow amputees using artificial neural networks and a data glove, J Hand Surg, 30A, 780, 10.1016/j.jhsa.2005.01.002 · DOI
  67. Shaperman, 2003, Early upper limb prosthesis fitting: When and what do we fit?, J Prosthet Orthot, 15, 11, 10.1097/00008526-200301000-00004 · doi:10.1097/00008526-200301000-00004
  68. Silcox, 1993, Myoelectric prostheses: Long-term follow-up and a study of the use of alternate prostheses, J Bone Joint Surg, 75A, 1781, 10.2106/00004623-199312000-00007 · DOI
  69. Silva, 2005, A self-contained mechanomyography-driven externally powered prosthesis, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 86, 2066, 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.034 · DOI
  70. Stein, 1983, Functional comparison of upper extremity amputees using myoelectric and conventional prostheses, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 64, 243
  71. Sturup, 1988, Traumatic amputation of the upper limb: The use of body-powered prostheses and employment consequences, Prosthet Orthot Int, 12, 50, 10.3109/03093648809079390 · DOI
  72. Thornby, 1992, Bimanual skill development in pediatric below-elbow amputation: A multicenter, cross-sectional study, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 73, 697
  73. Trost, 1983, A comparison of conventional and myoelectric below-elbow prosthetic use, ICIB, 18, 9
  74. van Lunteren, 1983, A field evaluation of arm prostheses for unilateral amputees, Prosthet Orthot Int, 7, 141, 10.3109/03093648309166586 · DOI
  75. Weaver, 1988, Comparison of myoelectric and conventional prostheses for adolescent amputees, Am J Occup Ther, 42, 87, 10.5014/ajot.42.2.87 · doi:10.5014/ajot.42.2.87
  76. Wright, 1995, Prosthetic usage in major upper extremity amputations, J Hand Surg, 20A, 619, 10.1016/S0363-5023(05)80278-3 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Yang, 2004, A multi-fingered hand prosthesis, Mech Mach Theory, 39, 555, 10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2004.01.002 · doi:10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2004.01.002
  78. Zecca, 2004, Experimental analysis of the proprioceptive and exteroceptive sensors of an underactuated prosthetic hand, Lect Notes Contr Inf, 306, 233, 10.1007/10946978_15 · DOI

Cited by

See all 1,111

Metadata

Authors
Biddiss, E. A., & Chau, T. T.
Venue
Prosthetics & Orthotics International
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2007-09
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
236-257
ISSN
0309-3646 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1080/03093640600994581
OpenAlex
W2132855977
Cited by
1,111
References
1
FWCI
4.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03093640600994581
The paper
Biddiss, E. A., & Chau, T. T. (2007). Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years. Prosthetics & Orthotics International. https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640600994581

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.