The multi-grip and standard myoelectric hand prosthesis compared: does the multi-grip hand live up to its promise?

Table 2 Within-group comparison of test scores from the MHP group^a using the MHP and the SHP

ICF	Measure	MHP condition	SHP condition	Test-statistic (t(df))	p-value	Effect size (r)
ICF	Measure	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Test-statistic (t(df))	p-value	Effect size (r)
B.F.	RCRT up:
	- Completion time - SD Completion time	23.8 ± 6.8 6.82 ± 4.1	16.3 ± 5.6 2.7 ± 2.9	4.1 (12) 2.8 (12)	0.00* 0.02	0.8 0.6
	RCRT down:
	- Completion time - SD Completion time	22.4 ± 8.8 6.8 ± 6.3	17.7 ± 7.9 3.3 ± 4.0	1.7 (12) 1.8 (12)	0.12 0.10	0.4 0.5
	Tray-test:
	- Completion time - SD Completion time	15.6 ± 3.8 4.7 ± 3.1	14.5 ± 4.8 2.9 ± 1.8	1.9 (12) 1.9 (12)	0.30 0.08	0.5 0.5
Act.	SHAP:
	- LIF_pp - W-LIF - P-IOF	46.1 ± 19.8 44.1 ± 20.0 58.9 ± 18.0	53.2 ± 18.7 51.9 ± 18.7 67.4 ± 13.3	− 1.9 (13) − 2.1 (13) − 2.5 (13)	0.08 0.05 0.03	0.5 0.5 0.6
	BBT	17.4 ± 5.5	15.1 ± 7.0	1.6 (13)	0.13	0.4

No statistical differences of the SHAP scores were found between participants who used the Bebionic and i-limb
MHP multi-grip myoelectric hand prosthesis, SHP standard myoelectric hand prosthesis, ICF International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-model, B.F. Body Function, Act. Activities, RCRT refined clothespin relocation test, SD standard deviation, SHAP Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure, LIF_pp linear index of function for the prehensile patterns, W-LIF weighted version of linear index of function for the prehensile patterns, P-IOF prosthesis index of functionality; BBT = Box and Blocks Test
^aN = 14
*Statistically significant at p < 0.01 (in bold)

ISSN: 1743-0003