Perspectives on the comparative benefits of body-powered and myoelectric upper limb prostheses.

Background: Patient access to body-powered and myoelectric upper limb prostheses in the United States is often restricted by a healthcare system that prioritizes prosthesis prescription based on cost and perceived value. Although this system operates on an underlying assumption that design differences between these prostheses leads to relative advantages and disadvantages of each device, there is limited empirical evidence to support this view.

Main text: This commentary article will review a series of studies conducted by our research team with the goal of differentiating how prosthesis design might impact user performance on a variety of interrelated domains. Our central hypothesis is that the design and actuation method of body-powered and myoelectric prostheses might affect users' ability to access sensory feedback and account for device properties when planning movements. Accordingly, other domains that depend on these abilities may also be affected. While our work demonstrated some differences in availability of sensory feedback based on prosthesis design, this did not result in consistent differences in prosthesis embodiment, movement accuracy, movement quality, and overall kinematic patterns.

Conclusion: Collectively, our findings suggest that performance may not necessarily depend on prosthesis design, allowing users to be successful with either device type depending on the circumstances. Prescription practices should rely more on individual needs and preferences than cost or prosthesis design. However, we acknowledge that there remains a dearth of evidence to inform decision-making and that an expanded research focus in this area will be beneficial.