ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Upper limb prostheses: a narrative review of hand, wrist, and elbow devices.
Review in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Upper limb amputation is among the most functionally disabling conditions, affecting an estimated 1.6 million people in the United States, with prevalence projected to double by 2050. Despite decades of technological progress, device abandonment rates remain persistently high, up to 45% for body-powered and 35% for myoelectric prostheses in the paediatric population, due to inadequate functionality, poor sensory feedback, discomfort, and social stigma. Objectives: This narrative review aims to provide a structured and up-to-date synthesis of upper limb prosthetic technologies, with a focus on hand, wrist, and elbow devices, analysing their structural characteristics, control mechanisms, clinical evidence on functional outcomes, and user satisfaction. Methods: A structured literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, combining terms related to upper limb amputation and prosthetic devices. A primary corpus of peer-reviewed articles was selected to cover the full spectrum of upper limb prosthetics, from foundational biomechanics to advanced bionic and neural interface systems; a narrative approach was adopted to accommodate the heterogeneity of available study designs. Results and conclusions: Across all device categories, no single prosthetic solution proved universally superior. Each category presents distinct functional, biomechanical, and psychosocial trade-offs, with prescription choices driven by amputation level, residual musculature, user priorities, and activity demands. Two limitations recur across every category. The first is the instability of surface EMG signals, which constrains reliable myoelectric control; the second is the absence of effective sensory feedback, which raises cognitive load and contributes to abandonment. Bridging the gap between laboratory performance and real-world usability, through more robust control algorithms, meaningful sensory restoration, and a shift toward user-centred, outcomes-driven development, remains the central challenge for the future of upper limb prosthetics.
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.