PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 28, 2026JPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics0 citations

Outcomes Associated With Use of Powered Wrist Units in Individuals With Transradial and Transhumeral Upper Limb Amputation: Findings From a Cross-sectional, Observational Cohort Study

View Full Paper
LRLinda ResnikMBMatthew BorgiaJCJill M. Cancio

Key Points

  • This study aims to compare the outcomes associated with powered wrist units and passive wrists in individuals with transradial and transhumeral amputations.
  • Cross-sectional observational cohort involving adults with transradial and transhumeral amputations
  • Data collected through physical exams, performance tests, and self-reports
  • Bivariate and multivariate analyses conducted to evaluate differences in pain, dexterity, and quality of life.
  • Bivariate comparisons indicated slower hand function with powered wrist units but better comfort in transhumeral users.
  • In multivariate analyses, powered wrist units showed no significant associations with any outcome measures in both amputation groups.
  • Overall, few differences were observed between users of powered and passive wrist units.

Abstract

Background: Wrist units with powered rotation (PWR) are commonly prescribed for upper extremity prostheses to improve the user’s ability to position the terminal device for activity tasks; however, little research has assessed how their use is associated with outcomes. Objective: The aim of the study was to compare key outcomes for persons using PWR and passive wrists. Study Design: The study used a cross-sectional, observational cohort of adults with transradial and transhumeral amputation. Methods: Data were collected through physical examination, performance-based testing, prosthesis evaluation, and self-report. Differences in pain, dexterity, activity performance, prosthesis satisfaction, and disability/quality of life between those with a PWR or passive wrist were examined in separate bivariate analyses by amputation level. Four multivariate linear models and a logistic regression model examined the effect of wrist type and controlled for potential confounders. Results: There were 56 people with transradial amputation and 18 with transhumeral amputation. Bivariate comparisons found PWR was associated with slower Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function (JTHF) page turning, higher contralateral limb pain prevalence in the transradial groups, and better prosthesis comfort and embodiment in the transhumeral groups. In multivariate models, PWR was not associated with any outcome measures in either subgroup. Conclusions: Bivariate comparisons found few differences between PWR users and passive wrist users. Multivariate models found no associations with PWR. Further research is needed given the small sample size and limitations in study design. Clinical Relevance Statement: This study did not detect differences in outcomes for users of PWR versus passive prosthesis wrists. However, these findings need to be considered cautiously, in light of the study’s observational design. Until further research is available, clinicians should consider potential advantages of PWR for persons with conditions of the contralateral limb or for those with short or very short transradial amputations as these amputation levels result in more limited forearm pronation and supination in the residual limb. These advantages need to be balanced with potential disadvantages of PWR including increased costs, and potentially heavier weight and complexity of PWR use- (J Prosthet Orthot. 2025;00:00–00 )

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Resnik et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a17db4d3fad632b0f9d81ebhttps://doi.org/10.1097/jpo.0000000000000610
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper