Home Analysis of voluntary opening Ottobock Hook and Hosmer Hook for upper limb prosthetics: a preliminary study
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Analysis of voluntary opening Ottobock Hook and Hosmer Hook for upper limb prosthetics: a preliminary study

  • Nur Afiqah Hashim , Nasrul Anuar bin Abd Razak EMAIL logo , Hossein Gholizadeh and Noor Azuan Abu Osman
Published/Copyright: November 19, 2016

Abstract

There are a number of prosthetic terminal devices which offer functional restoration to individuals with upper limb deficiencies. Hosmer and Ottobock are major commercial hook providers for prosthetic terminal devices. The concern of this paper is to analyse the voluntary opening (VO) Ottobock model 10A18 and Hosmer model 99P hooks (one band) during opening operation and to find out favourable features in the design. Two tests were conducted to analyse the performance of both hooks. The first test used a simple bench tool to investigate cable excursion and hook opening angle and the second test used force sensor to find out the force supplied at a different hook opening angle. The study found that the average cable excursion for both hooks is approximately 30% less than the hook’s opening span with the force at the hook’s tip section being inversely proportional to the force at the lateral section. Ottobock 10A18 has a better control for grasping larger objects, while Hosmer 99P has the highest average force at the tip section but yet less efficient in generating adequate force for activities of daily living. Favourable features identified are low cable excursion per hook opening span and balance lateral to hook tip pinch force.

  1. Research funding: This study was supported by the Malaysia UM Postgraduate Research Grant (project number: PG143-2016A).

Supplier

  1. Ottobock Healthcare (Ottobock, Germany) [15]

  2. Hosmer Company (Hosmer, USA) [8]

References

[1] Biddis E, Chau T. Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehab 2007;86:977–987.10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181587f6cSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Billock JN. Upper limb prosthetic terminal devices: Hands versus hooks. Clin Prosthet Orthot 1986;10:57–65.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Bowers R. Prosthetic Devices for Upper-Extremity Amputees. n.d. December, 2014 [cited 2016 April 24]; Available from: http://www.amputee-coalition.org/resources/prosthetic-devices-for-upper-extremity-amputees/.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Carlson LE, Long MP. Quantitative evaluation of body-powered prostheses. Chicago (IL): American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Dynamic Systems and Control Division 1988:1–16.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Corin JD, Teresa MS, Holley M, et al. Mechanical comparison of terminal devices. Clin Prosthet & Orthot 1987;11:235–244.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Heckathorne CW. Components for adult externally powered systems. In: Atlas of limb prosthetics: Surgical, prosthetic, and rehabilitation principles. 2nd ed. Rosemont, IL, USA: American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons 1992:151–174.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Hosmer. Hooks. [cited 2016 August 3]; Available from: http://hosmer.com/products/hooks/.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Hosmer. Hosmer. |Prosthetics and Orthotics. [cited 2016 August 3]; Available from: http://hosmer.com/index.html.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Jang CH, Yang HS, Yang HE, et al. A survey on activities of daily living and occupations of upper extremity amputees. Ann Rehabil Med 2011;35:907–921.10.5535/arm.2011.35.6.907Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Keller AD. Studies to determine the functional requirements for hand and arm prosthesis. Department of Engineering University of California 1947.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969;9(3 Part 1):179–186.10.1097/00006199-197005000-00029Search in Google Scholar

[12] LeBlanc M, Setoguchi Y, Shaperman J, Carlson L. Mechanical work efficiencies of body-powered prehensors for young children. Child Prosthet Orthot Clin 1992;27:70–75.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Lever. In Wikipedia, n.d.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Ottobock. Hooks. 2013 [cited 2016 August 3]; Available from: http://www.ottobock.com.tr/en/prosthetics/products-from-a-to-z/hooks/.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Ottobock. Ottobock Healthcare. [cited 2016 August 3]; Available from: http://www.ottobock.com/en/.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Pylatiuk C, Schulz S, Döderlein L. Results of an Internet survey of myoelectric prosthetic hand users. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007;31:362–370.10.1080/03093640601061265Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] Shaperman J, Landsberger SE, Yoshio S. Early upper limb prosthesis fitting: when and what do we fit. J Prosthet Orthot 2003;15:11.10.1097/00008526-200301000-00004Search in Google Scholar

[18] Smit G, Bongers RM, Van der Sluis CK, Plettenburg DH. Efficiency of voluntary opening hand and hook prosthetic devices, 24 years of development? J Rehabil Res Dev 2012;49:2012.10.1682/JRRD.2011.07.0125Search in Google Scholar

[19] Stein RB, Walley M. Functional comparison of upper extremity amputees using myoelectric and conventional prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1983;64:243–248.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Taylor CL. The biomechanics of control in upper-extremity prostheses. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy of Sciences 1955.Search in Google Scholar

[21] Uicker JJ, Pennock GR, Shigley JE. Theory of machines and mechanisms. New York: Oxford University Press 2011;1.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Van Der Niet Otr O, Reinders-Messelink HA, Bongers RM, Bouwsema H, Van Der Sluis CK. The i-LIMB hand and the DMC plus hand compared: a case report. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010;34:216–220.10.3109/03093641003767207Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Van Lunteren A, van Lunteren-Gerritsen G. On the use of prostheses by children with a unilateral congenital forearm defect. J Rehabil Sci 1989;2:10–12.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Watve S, Dodd G, MacDonald R, Stoppard ER. Upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation. Orthop Trauma 2011;25: 135–142.10.1016/j.mporth.2010.10.003Search in Google Scholar

[25] Wiener JM, Hanley RJ, Clark R, Van Nostrand JF. Measuring the activities of daily living: comparisons across national surveys. J Gerontol 1990;45:S229–S237.10.1093/geronj/45.6.S229Search in Google Scholar

[26] Zuo KJ, Olson JL. The evolution of functional hand replacement: From iron prostheses to hand transplantation. Plast Surg 2014;22:44–51.10.1177/229255031402200111Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-6-5
Accepted: 2016-9-29
Published Online: 2016-11-19
Published in Print: 2017-8-28

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 26.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bmt-2016-0130/html
Scroll to top button