ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Optimal Sites for Upper Extremity Amputation: Comparison Between Surgeons and Prosthetists.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Upper limb prostheses: a narrative review of hand, wrist, and elbow devices.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Review
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
Upper extremity amputations significantly impact an individual's physical capabilities, psychosocial well-being, and overall quality of life. The level at which an amputation is performed influences residual limb function, prosthetic compatibility, and long-term patient satisfaction. While surgical guidelines traditionally emphasize maximal limb preservation, prosthetists often advocate for amputation sites that optimize prosthetic fit and function, highlighting the need for a collaborative approach. This review examines the discrepancies between surgical and prosthetic recommendations for optimal amputation levels, from digit amputations to shoulder disarticulations, and explores their implications for prosthetic design, functionality, and patient outcomes. Various prosthetic options, including passive functional, body-powered, myoelectric, and hybrid devices, offer distinct advantages and limitations based on the level of amputation. Prosthetists emphasize the importance of residual limb length, not only for mechanical efficiency but also for achieving symmetry with the contralateral limb, minimizing discomfort, and enhancing control. Additionally, emerging technologies such as targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) and advanced myoelectric prostheses are reshaping rehabilitation strategies, further underscoring the need for precise amputation planning. By integrating insights from both surgical and prosthetic perspectives, this review highlights the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach involving surgeons, prosthetists, rehabilitation specialists, and patients in the decision-making process. A greater emphasis on preoperative planning and interprofessional collaboration can improve prosthetic outcomes, reduce device rejection rates, and ultimately enhance the functional independence and well-being of individuals with upper extremity amputations.
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.