1. Новые пути решения протезирования при обширных дефектах суставов и костей кисти. обзор литературы

Авторы

  • Д.М. Магеррамов —
  • М.И. Мурадов —
  • Я.А. Имиров —
  • Г.Ж. Сейилханова —
  • Е.Н. Набиев —
  • М. Керимов Baku branch of the First Moscow State Medical University named after I.M. Sechenov, Baku, Azerbaijan
  • Н.С. Ахметов —

Загрузки

Аннотация

Кисть человека – это орган труда, самообслуживания, осязания. По выражению Каплана Е. В. рука является продолжением нашего мозга в окружающей нас среде. Однако, будучи одной из наиболее функционально нагруженных систем, кисть, составляющие ее костные сегменты, повреждается достаточно часто. Цель работы – провести литературный обзор современных протезов в лечении заболеваний костей и суставов кисти.

Материал и методы. Мы провели систематический поиск литературных данных и отобрали источники из MEDLINE, базах данных Кокрейна, GoogleScholar, PubMed, а также исследовательские работы и учебные онлайн-издания на английском и русском языках. Были включены сорок работ, которые удовлетворяли критериям включения.

Результаты. В обзорной статье приведены методы лечения пациентов с дефектами и повреждениями костей и суставов кисти, причины развития данного патологического состояния. Выводы. Таким образом, существующие виды протезов на данный момент не полностью удовлетворяют потребности пациентов и не оказывают 100% положительный эффект от их применения в современной реконструктивной хирургии. Количество неудовлетворительных результатов реконструктивных операций и показатели инвалидности сохраняются высокими.

Ключевые слова

эндопротезирование, биопротез, биопечать, суставы кисти, повреждения кисти

Библиографические ссылки

  1. Kazantayev K.E., Nabiyev E.N., Mukhamedkerim K.B., Turdaliyeva B.S., Muradov M.I., Baimakhanov B.B. Pathomorphological aspects of research in long-term consequences of injuries of the fingor flexor tendons of the hand. Vestnik KazNMU (1)2022; 279-285: DOI 10.53065/ kaznmu.2022.13.48.043
  2. Williams HE, Boser QA, Pilarski PM, Chapman CS, Vette AH, Hebert JS.Hand Function Kinematics when using a Simulated Myoelectric Prosthesis. IEEE IntConfRehabil Robot. 2019 Jun;2019:169-174. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2019.8779443.PMID:31374625
  3. Smit G.Mechanical evaluation of the «Hüfner hand» prosthesis. ProsthetOrthot Int. 2021 Feb; 45(1):54-61. doi:10.1177/0309364620952900
  4. Kazantayev K.E., Nabiyev E.N., Mukhamedkerim K.B., Turdaliyeva B.S., Muradov M.I., Baimakhanov B.B. Analysis of the results of surgical treatment with the advanced method of autotendoplasty in patients with the consequences of injuries of the tendons of the flexors of the hand. Vestnik KazNMU (1)2022; 305-312: DOI 10.53065/kaznmu.2022.90.60.047
  5. Bhat AK, M V, Acharya AM. Functional Assessment of 3D Printed Prosthesis in Children with Congenital Hand Differences-A Prospective Observational Study. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol. 2021 Dec; 26(4):535-544. doi:10.1142/S2424835521500508.PMID:34789089
  6. Kaya ZE, Yılmaz A. Modeling and simulation of an anthropomorphic hand prosthesis with an object interaction. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2020 Jan; 183:105085. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.105085.Epub2019Sep18.PMID:31568996
  7. Zhang D, Bauer AS, Blazar P, Earp BE. Three-Dimensional Printing in Hand Surgery.J Hand Surg Am. 2021 Nov;46(11):1016-1022. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.05.028.Epub2021Jul15.PMID:34274209Review
  8. Blana D, Chadwick EK, van den Bogert AJ, Murray WM. Real-time simulation of hand motion for prosthesis control. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2017 Apr;20(5):540-549. doi:10.1080/10255842.2016.1255943.Epub2016Nov20
  9. Fu Q, Shao F, Santello M. S. Inter-Limb Transfer of Grasp Force Perception With Closed-Loop Hand Prosthesis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019 May;27(5):927-936. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2911893.Epub2019Apr23.PMID:31021799
  10. Wells ED, Shehata AW, Dawson MR, Carey JP, Hebert JS.Preliminary Evaluation of the Effect of Mechanotactile Feedback Location on Myoelectric Prosthesis Performance Using a Sensorized Prosthetic Hand.Sensors (Basel). 2022 May 21;22(10):3892. doi:10.3390/s22103892
  11. Lu W, Li JP, Jiang ZD, Yang L, Liu XZ. Effects of targeted muscle reinnervation on spinal cord motor neurons in rats following tibial nerve transection. Neural Regen Res. 2022 Aug;17(8):1827-1832. doi:10.4103/1673-5374.332153
  12. Andrianesis K, Tzes A. Development and control of a multifunctional prosthetic hand with shape memory alloy actuators. J Intell Robot Syst 2014;78:257–289
  13. Bahari MS, Jaffar A, Low CY, et al. Design and development of a multifingered prosthetic hand. Int J Soc Robot. 2012;4:59–66
  14. Laliberte T, Baril M, Guay F, et al. Towards the design of a prosthetic underactuated hand. MechSci. 2010;1:19–26
  15. Gretsch KF, Lather HD, Peddada KV, et al. Development of novel 3D-printed robotic prosthetic for transradial amputees. Prosthet Orthotics Int. 2015;40:400–403. 0309364615579317
  16. Groenewegen MWM. Design of a compliant, multi-phalanx underactuated prosthetic finger [Master Thesis]. Delft: Delft University of Tec­h­ nology; 2014
  17. O’Neill C. An advanced, low cost prosthetic arm. In: SENSORS, 2014 IEEE. New York: IEEE; 2014
  18. Simone F, York A, Seelecke S. Design and fabrication of a three-finger prosthetic hand using SMA muscle wires. In: SPIE Smart Structures and Materials + Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring. International Society for Optics and Photonics; 2015
  19. Enabling The Future. [cited 2015 Jun 19]. Available from: http://enablingthefuture.org
  20. Robohand. Available from: http://www.robohand. net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2013-03-29-11-10-58-b.jpg
  21. Resnik L, Meucci MR, Lieberman-Klinger S, et al. Advanced upper limb prosthetic devices: implications for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:710–717. 23. van der Riet D, Stopforth R, Bright G, Diegel O. An overview and comparison of upper limb prosthetics. In: AFRICON, 2013. NewYork: IEEE; 2013
  22. Campbell T, Williams C, Ivanova O, Garrett B. Could 3D printing change the world. In: Technologies, potential, and implications of additive manufacturing. Washington, DC: Atlantic Council; 2011
  23. Doubrovski Z, Verlinden JC, Geraedts JMP. Optimal design for additive manufacturing: opportunities and challenges. In: ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2011
  24. Antfolk C, D’Alonzo M, Rosen B, Lundborg G, Sebelius F, Cipriani C (2013) Sensory feedback in upper limb prosthetics. Expert Rev Med Devices 10: 45–54. 10.1586/erd.12.68
  25. Cordella F, Ciancio AL, Sacchetti R, Davalli A, Cutti AG, Guglielmelli E, et al. (2016) Literature review on needs of upper limb prosthesis users. Front Neurosci 10: 209 10.3389/fnins.2016.00209 - DOI - PMC – PubMed
  26. Srinivasan MA, Lamotte RH (1995) Tactual discrimination of softness. J Neurophysiol 73: 88–101. 10.1152/jn.1995.73.1.88
  27. Witteveen HJB, Luft F, Rietman JS, Veltink PH (2014) Stiffness feedback for myoelectric forearm prostheses using vibrotactile stimulation. IEEE Trans Neural SystRehabilEng 22: 53–61. 10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2267394
  28. Carey SL, Lura DJ, Highsmith MJ, CpFaaop (2015) Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: Systematic literature review. J Rehabil Res Dev 52: 247–262. 10.1682/JRRD.2014.08.0192
  29. Muradov M.I., Baitinger V.F.,Kamolov F.F.,Sayk P.Yu., Kurochkina O.S. assessment of the remote results of endoprosthesis replacement of joints of fingers of the hand. Issues of reconstructive and plastic surgery № 1 (56) March’2016. 33-40.doi 10.17223/1814147/56/5
  30. Hebert JS, Boser QA, Pilarski PM, Valevicius AM, Vette AH, Tanikawa H, et al. Quantitative eye gaze and movement differences in visuomotor AND BONES OF THE HAND. LITERATURE REVIEW adaptations to varying task demands among upper-extremity prosthesis users. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(9):e1911197
  31. Metzger AJ, Dromerick AW, Holley RJ, Lum PS. Characterization of compensatory trunk movements during prosthetic upper limb reaching tasks. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(11):2029– 2034. 34
  32. Hussaini A, Zinck A, Kyberd P. Cate­go­ri­ zation of compensatory motions in transradial myoelectric prosthesis users. ProsthetOrthot Int. 2017;41(3):286–293. – PubMed
  33. Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86(12):977–987. - PubMed
  34. Biddiss E., Beaton D., Chau T. Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2007;2:346–357. doi:10.1080/17483100701714733.-DOI–PubMed
  35. Asghari Oskoei M., Hu H. Myoelectric control systems – A survey. Biomed. Signal Process. Control. 2007;2:275–294. doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2007.07.009
  36. Scheme E., Englehart K. Electromyogram pattern recognition for control of powered upper-limb prostheses: State of the art and challenges for clinical use. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2011;48:643– 659. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2010.09.0177
  37. Campbell E., Phinyomark A., Scheme E. Current Trends and Confounding Factors in Myoelectric Control: Limb Position and Contraction Intensity. Sensors. 2020;20:1613. doi:10.3390/s20061613
  38. Biddiss E., Chau T. Upper-Limb Prosthetics: Critical Factors in Device Abandonment. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2007;86:977. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181587f6c

Опубликован

2022-10-10

Выпуск

№ 3 (2022)

Раздел

Статьи