Transradial AmputationNCT06684730
Comparison of Standard Myoelectric Hand and Bionic Hand Use in Individuals With Upper Limb Amputation
An observational study of Transradial Amputation and Wrist Disarticulation, run by Gaziler Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Education and Research Hospital at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
This single-center, prospective, comparative study aims to compare hand function, quality of life, patient satisfaction, task completion time, fatigue, and compensatory elbow, shoulder, and cervical movements in individuals with transradial amputation or wrist disarticulation who use either standard myoelectric or… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Transradial Amputation, Wrist Disarticulation
- What is being tested?
- Hand Function Assessment Scales, Prosthesis Satisfaction Scale and Quality of Life Scale
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 22 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 1 Dec 2024to 1 Jun 2026
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Twenty-two participants with transradial amputation or wrist disarticulation will be enrolled in the study. These participants will be recruited from the Veterans Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Training and Research Hospital and will consist of 11 individuals using bionic hand prostheses and 11 using standard myoelectric hand prostheses.
Who may be able to join
- Having a transradial amputation or wrist disarticulation due to acquired or congenital causes,
- Using a standard myoelectric or bionic hand prosthesis for at least 6 months,
- Being between the ages of 18 and 65,
- Having no neurological or cognitive disorders, rheumatic diseases, or other upper extremity dysfunction that could affect test results, and
- Having signed an informed consent form indicating the patient's willingness to participate in the study.
Who cannot join
- Individuals younger than 18 or older than 65,
- Those with additional musculoskeletal or neurological conditions preventing them from completing the tests and scales,
- Those with psychiatric disorders or cognitive impairments preventing them from completing the questionnaire and assessment scales,
- Those with stump or upper extremity conditions preventing them from using their prosthesis.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Gaziler Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Training and Research Hospital
Ankara, ÇANKAYA, 06100
About this study
This single-center, prospective, comparative study aims to compare hand function, quality of life, patient satisfaction, task completion time, fatigue, and compensatory elbow, shoulder, and cervical movements in individuals with transradial amputation or wrist disarticulation who use either standard myoelectric or bionic hand prostheses. The primary research questions are:
- Are there differences in patient satisfaction, quality of life, and hand function between individuals using standard myoelectric and bionic hand prostheses?
- Do individuals using standard myoelectric and bionic hand prostheses exhibit different kinematics in terms of compensatory shoulder, elbow, and neck movements? Could bionic hand prostheses with their diverse grasping capabilities lead to fewer compensatory movements compared to standard myoelectric hand prostheses?
- Can fatigue induced by performing specific activities of daily living alter hand function and upper extremity-neck kinematics in individuals using either standard myoelectric or bionic hand prostheses?
- Can cognitive and physical fatigue following activities of daily living lead to different levels of changes in hand function and upper extremity-neck kinematics in individuals using standard myoelectric and bionic hand prostheses?
Read the detailed description
Amputation constitutes a major trauma that substantially affects an individual's functional status and activities of daily living. The functional impairments ensuing from amputation can impede reintegration into normal life, giving rise to social, occupational, and psychological challenges. Amputees frequently encounter significant limitations in activities and participation. These limitations are predominantly related to mobility and self-care. These factors adversely affect the ability to return to work and maintain employment, continue social relationships, engage in leisure pursuits, and be active in community life. A variety of prostheses are employed to restore the functions of an amputated limb and achieve bodily integrity. Individuals with upper limb amputations may utilize cosmetic (passive), body-powered (mechanical, cable-activated), myoelectric, or hybrid prostheses. Myoelectric prostheses are controlled by electromyography (EMG) signals and are powered by rechargeable motors to execute movements. Successful prosthesis use necessitates the individual's physical capacity to operate the device and sufficient cognitive awareness to comprehend and control it. Two prevalent hand types in myoelectric upper limb prostheses are the standard myoelectric hand and the bionic hand. The standard myoelectric hand employs a single motor to provide a robust and consistent tripod grasp. The motor actuates the opening and closing of the first, second, and third digits. The fourth and fifth digits passively follow the others. Bionic hands, in contrast, feature multiple joints in each finger, enabling more natural finger movements, and some models incorporate multiple motors for independent finger control. This expands the range of functional grasp patterns. Instead of a single tripod grasp, they offer various grasp patterns (pinch, trigger, lateral, cylindrical, spherical, hook, key grasp, etc.). While providing users with greater hand dexterity, this increased grasp versatility comes with drawbacks such as higher cost and reduced durability. Moreover, the sequential nature of grasp movements, the necessity for patients to memorize this sequence, and the need to switch modes between grasps (open, dual, triple, co-contraction, button) can pose usability challenges. Consequently, executing a hand function using these grasps can be time-consuming, cognitively demanding, and physically exhausting. Despite over a decade of use, the existing literature on the advantages and disadvantages of bionic hand prostheses is limited and the findings are not entirely compelling. Additionally, these few studies predominantly rely on user reports. Individuals with upper limb amputation who use prostheses demonstrate unnatural or unusual movements in other joints and body regions. To successfully perform activities of daily living and tasks, they adapt the movement of their remaining limbs and develop compensatory movements. As the prosthesis's functionality approaches that of a healthy hand, compensatory movements also diminish. Studies have shown that during the use of upper limb prostheses, shoulder and trunk joint angles are increased compared to healthy individuals, elbow range of motion is limited, and decreased elbow movement is compensated for by increasing shoulder abduction or cervical spine flexion. These compensatory movements result in cognitive and physical fatigue in amputees. This situation is considered one of the factors influencing the discontinuation of prosthesis use. While the literature suggests that the use of bionic hands may reduce these compensatory movements, only one study has compared these angles in individuals using standard myoelectric hands and bionic hands. To our knowledge, there is no study that comprehensively compares quality of life, prosthesis satisfaction, kinematic measurement of compensatory elbow, shoulder, and cervical movements, time-consuming of hand functions, and the degree of fatigue in individuals with upper limb amputation who use bionic or standard myoelectric hands. This study aims to address this gap in the literature, evaluate the functionality of prostheses more objectively by combining various outcome measures, and to pioneer new studies.
- Conditions
- Transradial Amputation, Wrist Disarticulation
- Being tested
- Hand Function Assessment Scales, Prosthesis Satisfaction Scale, Quality of Life Scale, Kinematic Analysis, Parkour Completion Time
- Keywords
- Standard Myoelectric Hand, Transradial Amputation, Bionic Hand, Wrist disarticulation, Amputation of upper limb
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Hand Function Assessment ScalesProcedure or surgery
The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH), The Box and Block Test (BBT) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) will be used as hand function assessment scales.
Prosthesis Satisfaction ScaleOther
The Quebec Assistive Technology User Satisfaction Assessment (Q-YTKMD) Questionnaire will be used.
Quality of Life ScaleOther
5Q-5D-5L will be used as quality of life scale.
Kinematic AnalysisProcedure or surgery
Kinematic analysis of shoulder abduction, elbow flexion, and cervical flexion will be performed during simulated tasks of drinking water from a glass and filling glass of water.
Parkour Completion TimeProcedure or surgery
A 10-item daily living activities parkour will be prepared for the participants. During the parkour, the participant will be given the following tasks: opening and closing 10 jar lids, slicing a 20cm cylindrical dough into 10 pieces, simulating drinking soup from a bowl 15 times with a spoon (standard bowl 150 ml, standard tablespoon 10 ml), simulating eating meatballs from a plate with a fork 10 times (approximately 6-10 meatballs per serving), simulating pouring water from a pitcher into a glass 10 times, simulating drinking water from a glass 10 times, simulating brushing teeth for 2 minutes, opening 10 clothespins attached to the edge of a cardboard box and attaching them to the other side, simulating opening and closing a zipper, and putting on shoes and tying shoelaces. The course completion time will be recorded.
Fatigue ScaleProcedure or surgery
A pre- and post-parkour will be employed, including a 5-point Likert scale for fatigue assesment, hand function assessment scales and kinematic analysis to participants. The results before and after the parkour will be compared.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using standard myoelectric hands | Not described Receives: Procedure: Hand Function Assessment Scales; Other: Prosthesis Satisfaction Scale; Other: Quality of Life Scale; Procedure: Kinematic Analysis; Procedure: Parkour Completion Time; Procedure: Fatigue Scale | |
| Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using bionic hand | Not described Receives: Procedure: Hand Function Assessment Scales; Other: Prosthesis Satisfaction Scale; Other: Quality of Life Scale; Procedure: Kinematic Analysis; Procedure: Parkour Completion Time; Procedure: Fatigue Scale |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Kinematical measurement of shoulder abduction
Kinovea, a free and reliable 2D motion analysis software, will be used to collect kinematic data during simulated tasks of pouring water from a pitcher into a glass and drinking water from an empty glass. Kinovea provides acceptable accuracy in angular and linear measurements obtained by digitizing x and y coordinates. In the study, two synchronized cameras will be positioned 150 cm away from the patient, anteriorly and laterally, to capture the lumbar region and more proximal segments. Markers will be placed on the lateral epicondyle and fossa cubitalis of the elbow, and on the anterior and lateral aspects of the glenohumeral joint. Shoulder abduction kinematics will be assessed.
Measured: immediately before/after the parkour
Secondary outcomes (9)
Defined parkour completion time
A 10-item daily living activities parkour will be prepared for the participants. During the parkour, the participant will be given the following tasks: opening and closing 10 jar lids, slicing a 20cm cylindrical dough into 10 pieces, simulating drinking soup from a bowl 15 times with a spoon (standard bowl 150 ml, standard tablespoon 10 ml), simulating eating meatballs from a plate with a fork 10 times (approximately 6-10 meatballs per serving), simulating pouring water from a pitcher into a glass 10 times, simulating drinking water from a glass 10 times, simulating brushing teeth for 2 minutes, opening 10 clothespins attached to the edge of a cardboard box and attaching them to the other side, simulating opening and closing a zipper, and putting on shoes and tying shoelaces. The course completion time will be recorded.
Measured: From the start of the parkour to the completion of the parkour (about 12 minutes)
The Box and Blocks Test (BBT)
The Box and Blocks Test (BBT) is a standardized assessment of unimanual dexterity. It involves transferring 150 cubic wooden blocks, one at a time, from one compartment of a divided wooden box to the other within a one-minute time limit. The test score is determined by the total number of blocks transferred, with higher scores indicating greater dexterity.
Measured: "Immediately before/after parkour
Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
The Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) is a standardized 19-item assessment designed to evaluate upper limb function. Tasks are hierarchically arranged from complex to simple and are categorized into four subscales: gross grasp, fine grasp, pinch, and gross movement. A 4-point ordinal scale, ranging from 0 (no movement) to 3 (normal movement), is used to score each item. Total scores range from 0 to 57, with higher scores indicating better upper limb function.
Measured: Immediately before/after parkour
Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH)
This is a commonly used 30-item outcome assessment tool designed to quantify the physical, psychological, and social role function in individuals experiencing upper extremity dysfunction. The questionnaire employs a 5-point Likert scale for scoring, where a higher score signifies a more pronounced level of disability.
Measured: Immediately before/after parkour
Kinematic measurement of elbow flexion
Kinovea software will be used during simulated tasks of pouring water from a pitcher into a glass and drinking water from an empty glass. Two synchronized cameras will be positioned 150 cm away from the patient, anteriorly and laterally, to capture the lumbar region and more proximal segments. Markers will be placed on the lateral epicondyle and fossa cubitalis of the elbow, anteriorly and laterally on the glenohumeral joint, and on the dorsal aspect of the hand. Elbow flexion kinematics will be evaluated.
Measured: Immediately before/after parkour
Kinematic measurement of cervical flexion
Kinovea software will be used during simulated tasks of pouring water from a pitcher into a glass and drinking water from an empty glass. Two synchronized cameras will be positioned 150 cm away from the patient, anteriorly and laterally, to capture the lumbar region and more proximal segments. Markers will be placed on the C7 vertebra and the occiput. Cervical flexion kinematics will be evaluated.
Measured: Immediately before/after parkour
5Q-5D-5L
The 5Q-5D-5L is a generic quality of life scale. The scale is divided into two sections. The first section assesses the daily health profile in five sub-dimensions: movement, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Respondents rate each sub-dimension on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "no problem" to "extreme problem". In the second section, participants rate their current health status on a 0-100 scale, marking their response on a thermometer-like scale.
Measured: Baseline
The Quebec Assistive Technology User Satisfaction Assessment (Q-YTKMD) Questionnaire
The Q-YTKMD questionnaire is a standardized tool commonly used to evaluate the satisfaction of individuals using a variety of assistive technologies. It comprises 12 items, specifically addressing satisfaction with the assistive device (8 items) and the service provided (4 items). Scores range between 12 and 60, with higher scores reflecting greater levels of satisfaction.
Measured: Baseline
Fatigue Assessment Scale
It is a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not tired at all) to 5 (very tired).
Measured: Immediately before/after parkour
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted12 Nov 2024
- Study start1 Dec 2024
- Primary completion28 Feb 2026
- Study completion1 Jun 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Transradial AmputationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 22 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Gaziler Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Education and Research Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Nurdan Korkmaz, Gaziler Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Education and Research Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06684730
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- E-34215015-771-250527790
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 7 Nov 2024
- Last updated
- 10 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Major MJ, Stine RL, Heckathorne CW, Fatone S, Gard SA. Comparison of range-of-motion and variability in upper body movements between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Sep 6;11:132. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-132.
PubMed 25192744Carey SL, Dubey RV, Bauer GS, Highsmith MJ. Kinematic comparison of myoelectric and body powered prostheses while performing common activities. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2009 Jun;33(2):179-86. doi: 10.1080/03093640802613229.
PubMed 19367522Kerver N, Schuurmans V, van der Sluis CK, Bongers RM. The multi-grip and standard myoelectric hand prosthesis compared: does the multi-grip hand live up to its promise? J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2023 Feb 15;20(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s12984-023-01131-w.
PubMed 36793049
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Standard Myoelectric Hand and Bionic Hand Use in Individuals With Upper Limb Amputation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06684730
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- E-34215015-771-250527790
- Conditions
- Transradial Amputation, Wrist Disarticulation
- Keywords
- Standard Myoelectric Hand, Transradial Amputation, Bionic Hand, Wrist disarticulation, Amputation of upper limb
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 22 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Gaziler Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Education and Research HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Dec 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 28 Feb 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jun 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 12 Nov 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This single-center, prospective, comparative study aims to compare hand function, quality of life, patient satisfaction, task completion time, fatigue, and compensatory elbow, shoulder, and cervical movements in individuals with transradial amputation or wrist disarticulation who use either standard myoelectric or bionic hand prostheses. The primary research questions are:
- Are there differences in patient satisfaction, quality of life, and hand function between individuals using standard myoelectric and bionic hand prostheses?
- Do individuals using standard myoelectric and bionic hand prostheses exhibit different kinematics in terms of compensatory shoulder, elbow, and neck movements? Could bionic hand prostheses with their diverse grasping capabilities lead to fewer compensatory movements compared to standard myoelectric hand prostheses?
- Can fatigue induced by performing specific activities of daily living alter hand function and upper extremity-neck kinematics in individuals using either standard myoelectric or bionic hand prostheses?
- Can cognitive and physical fatigue following activities of daily living lead to different levels of changes in hand function and upper extremity-neck kinematics in individuals using standard myoelectric and bionic hand prostheses?
Detailed description
Amputation constitutes a major trauma that substantially affects an individual's functional status and activities of daily living. The functional impairments ensuing from amputation can impede reintegration into normal life, giving rise to social, occupational, and psychological challenges. Amputees frequently encounter significant limitations in activities and participation. These limitations are predominantly related to mobility and self-care. These factors adversely affect the ability to return to work and maintain employment, continue social relationships, engage in leisure pursuits, and be active in community life. A variety of prostheses are employed to restore the functions of an amputated limb and achieve bodily integrity. Individuals with upper limb amputations may utilize cosmetic (passive), body-powered (mechanical, cable-activated), myoelectric, or hybrid prostheses. Myoelectric prostheses are controlled by electromyography (EMG) signals and are powered by rechargeable motors to execute movements. Successful prosthesis use necessitates the individual's physical capacity to operate the device and sufficient cognitive awareness to comprehend and control it. Two prevalent hand types in myoelectric upper limb prostheses are the standard myoelectric hand and the bionic hand. The standard myoelectric hand employs a single motor to provide a robust and consistent tripod grasp. The motor actuates the opening and closing of the first, second, and third digits. The fourth and fifth digits passively follow the others. Bionic hands, in contrast, feature multiple joints in each finger, enabling more natural finger movements, and some models incorporate multiple motors for independent finger control. This expands the range of functional grasp patterns. Instead of a single tripod grasp, they offer various grasp patterns (pinch, trigger, lateral, cylindrical, spherical, hook, key grasp, etc.). While providing users with greater hand dexterity, this increased grasp versatility comes with drawbacks such as higher cost and reduced durability. Moreover, the sequential nature of grasp movements, the necessity for patients to memorize this sequence, and the need to switch modes between grasps (open, dual, triple, co-contraction, button) can pose usability challenges. Consequently, executing a hand function using these grasps can be time-consuming, cognitively demanding, and physically exhausting. Despite over a decade of use, the existing literature on the advantages and disadvantages of bionic hand prostheses is limited and the findings are not entirely compelling. Additionally, these few studies predominantly rely on user reports. Individuals with upper limb amputation who use prostheses demonstrate unnatural or unusual movements in other joints and body regions. To successfully perform activities of daily living and tasks, they adapt the movement of their remaining limbs and develop compensatory movements. As the prosthesis's functionality approaches that of a healthy hand, compensatory movements also diminish. Studies have shown that during the use of upper limb prostheses, shoulder and trunk joint angles are increased compared to healthy individuals, elbow range of motion is limited, and decreased elbow movement is compensated for by increasing shoulder abduction or cervical spine flexion. These compensatory movements result in cognitive and physical fatigue in amputees. This situation is considered one of the factors influencing the discontinuation of prosthesis use. While the literature suggests that the use of bionic hands may reduce these compensatory movements, only one study has compared these angles in individuals using standard myoelectric hands and bionic hands. To our knowledge, there is no study that comprehensively compares quality of life, prosthesis satisfaction, kinematic measurement of compensatory elbow, shoulder, and cervical movements, time-consuming of hand functions, and the degree of fatigue in individuals with upper limb amputation who use bionic or standard myoelectric hands. This study aims to address this gap in the literature, evaluate the functionality of prostheses more objectively by combining various outcome measures, and to pioneer new studies.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using standard myoelectric hands | – | Procedure: Hand Function Assessment Scales, Other: Prosthesis Satisfaction Scale, Other: Quality of Life Scale, Procedure: Kinematic Analysis, Procedure: Parkour Completion Time, Procedure: Fatigue Scale |
| Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using bionic hand | – | Procedure: Hand Function Assessment Scales, Other: Prosthesis Satisfaction Scale, Other: Quality of Life Scale, Procedure: Kinematic Analysis, Procedure: Parkour Completion Time, Procedure: Fatigue Scale |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Twenty-two participants with transradial amputation or wrist disarticulation will be enrolled in the study. These participants will be recruited from the Veterans Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Training and Research Hospital and will consist of 11 individuals using bionic hand prostheses and 11 using standard myoelectric hand prostheses.
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Having a transradial amputation or wrist disarticulation due to acquired or congenital causes,
- Using a standard myoelectric or bionic hand prosthesis for at least 6 months,
- Being between the ages of 18 and 65,
- Having no neurological or cognitive disorders, rheumatic diseases, or other upper extremity dysfunction that could affect test results, and
- Having signed an informed consent form indicating the patient's willingness to participate in the study.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Individuals younger than 18 or older than 65,
- Those with additional musculoskeletal or neurological conditions preventing them from completing the tests and scales,
- Those with psychiatric disorders or cognitive impairments preventing them from completing the questionnaire and assessment scales,
- Those with stump or upper extremity conditions preventing them from using their prosthesis.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Hand Function Assessment ScalesThe Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH), The Box and Block Test (BBT) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) will be used as hand function assessment scales. | Procedure or surgery | Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using bionic hand, Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using standard myoelectric hands |
| Prosthesis Satisfaction ScaleThe Quebec Assistive Technology User Satisfaction Assessment (Q-YTKMD) Questionnaire will be used. | Other | Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using bionic hand, Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using standard myoelectric hands |
| Quality of Life Scale5Q-5D-5L will be used as quality of life scale. | Other | Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using bionic hand, Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using standard myoelectric hands |
| Kinematic AnalysisKinematic analysis of shoulder abduction, elbow flexion, and cervical flexion will be performed during simulated tasks of drinking water from a glass and filling glass of water. | Procedure or surgery | Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using bionic hand, Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using standard myoelectric hands |
| Parkour Completion TimeA 10-item daily living activities parkour will be prepared for the participants. During the parkour, the participant will be given the following tasks: opening and closing 10 jar lids, slicing a 20cm cylindrical dough into 10 pieces, simulating drinking soup from a bowl 15 times with a spoon (standard bowl 150 ml, standard tablespoon 10 ml), simulating eating meatballs from a plate with a fork 10 times (approximately 6-10 meatballs per serving), simulating pouring water from a pitcher into a glass 10 times, simulating drinking water from a glass 10 times, simulating brushing teeth for 2 minutes, opening 10 clothespins attached to the edge of a cardboard box and attaching them to the other side, simulating opening and closing a zipper, and putting on shoes and tying shoelaces. The course completion time will be recorded. | Procedure or surgery | Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using bionic hand, Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using standard myoelectric hands |
| Fatigue ScaleA pre- and post-parkour will be employed, including a 5-point Likert scale for fatigue assesment, hand function assessment scales and kinematic analysis to participants. The results before and after the parkour will be compared. | Procedure or surgery | Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using bionic hand, Individuals with transradial amputees or wrist disarticulation using standard myoelectric hands |
Primary outcome
Kinematical measurement of shoulder abduction
Time frame: immediately before/after the parkour
Kinovea, a free and reliable 2D motion analysis software, will be used to collect kinematic data during simulated tasks of pouring water from a pitcher into a glass and drinking water from an empty glass. Kinovea provides acceptable accuracy in angular and linear measurements obtained by digitizing x and y coordinates. In the study, two synchronized cameras will be positioned 150 cm away from the patient, anteriorly and laterally, to capture the lumbar region and more proximal segments. Markers will be placed on the lateral epicondyle and fossa cubitalis of the elbow, and on the anterior and lateral aspects of the glenohumeral joint. Shoulder abduction kinematics will be assessed.
9 secondary outcomes
Defined parkour completion time
Time frame: From the start of the parkour to the completion of the parkour (about 12 minutes)
The Box and Blocks Test (BBT)
Time frame: "Immediately before/after parkour
Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
Time frame: Immediately before/after parkour
Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH)
Time frame: Immediately before/after parkour
Kinematic measurement of elbow flexion
Time frame: Immediately before/after parkour
Kinematic measurement of cervical flexion
Time frame: Immediately before/after parkour
5Q-5D-5L
Time frame: Baseline
The Quebec Assistive Technology User Satisfaction Assessment (Q-YTKMD) Questionnaire
Time frame: Baseline
Fatigue Assessment Scale
Time frame: Immediately before/after parkour
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Sep 2026.
- Background: PubMed 25192744Major MJ, Stine RL, Heckathorne CW, Fatone S, Gard SA. Comparison of range-of-motion and variability in upper body movements between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Sep 6;11:132. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-132.
- Background: PubMed 19367522Carey SL, Dubey RV, Bauer GS, Highsmith MJ. Kinematic comparison of myoelectric and body powered prostheses while performing common activities. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2009 Jun;33(2):179-86. doi: 10.1080/03093640802613229.
- Background: PubMed 36793049Kerver N, Schuurmans V, van der Sluis CK, Bongers RM. The multi-grip and standard myoelectric hand prosthesis compared: does the multi-grip hand live up to its promise? J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2023 Feb 15;20(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s12984-023-01131-w.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Transradial Amputation
Recruiting
Clinical Feasibility of the IMES Transradial Prosthesis
Amputation
Recruiting
Cross-Over Study Evaluating the TASKA GEN2 Myoelectric Hand Prosthesis
Upper Limb Amputation, Transradial Amputation
Recruiting
Comparing the Attentional Demands and Functional Outcomes in People With Transradial Amputation
Amputation, Prosthesis Use
Recruiting
Improving Prosthetic Arms for Amputee: A Better Fit and More Functionality
Amputation, Surgical
Recruiting
Evaluation of the Phantom X Implantable EMG Sensor System for Myoelectric Prosthesis Control
Upper Limb Amputation Below Elbow (Injury), Wrist Disarticulation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Transradial Amputation and Wrist Disarticulation, run by Gaziler Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Education and Research Hospital at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Kinematical measurement of shoulder abduction (time frame: immediately before/after the parkour). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06684730, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 10 Sep 2026.