ArticleBMC biomedical engineering2024
A performance evaluation of commercially available and 3D-printable prosthetic hands: a comparison using the anthropomorphic hand assessment protocol.
Article in BMC biomedical engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polymer Prosthetic Hand with Finger Copies for Persons with Congenital Defects or After Amputation Using 3D Printing Technology.Polymers · 2025Article
- Health care costs of major upper-extremity amputations in Ontario: a retrospective matched-cohort analysis with considerations for transplantation.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite significant technological progress in prosthetic hands, a device with functionality akin to a biological extremity is far from realization. To better support the development of next-generation technologies, we investigated the grasping capabilities of clinically prescribable and commercially available (CPCA) prosthetic hands against those that are 3D-printed, which offer cost-effective and customizable solutions. Our investigation utilized the Anthropomorphic Hand Assessment Protocol (AHAP) as a benchtop evaluation of the multi-grasp performance of 3D-printed devices against CPCA prosthetic hands. Our comparison sample included three open-source 3D-printed prosthetic hands (HACKberry Hand, HANDi Hand, and BEAR PAW) and three CPCA prosthetic hands (Össur i-Limb Quantum, RSL Steeper BeBionic Hand V3, and Psyonic Ability Hand), along with including previously published AHAP data for four additional 3D-printed hands (Dextrus v2.0, IMMA, InMoov, and Limbitless). Our findings revealed a notable grasping performance disparity, with 3D-printed prostheses generally underperforming compared to their CPCA counterparts, specifically in cylindrical, diagonal volar, extension, and spherical grips. We propose that the observed performance shortfalls are likely attributed to the design or build quality of the 3D-printed prostheses, owing to the fact that 3D-printed hands often have a lower technology readiness level for widespread use. Addressing the limitations highlighted in this work and subsequent research will play a crucial role in refining the design and functionality of both 3D-printed and CPCA prosthetic devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.