A performance evaluation of commercially available and 3D-printable prosthetic hands: a comparison using the anthropomorphic hand assessment protocol

• Published in: BMC biomedical engineering 2024-12, Vol.6 (1), p.11-14
• Main Authors: Siegel, Joshua R, Harwood, Jedidiah K, Lau, Annette C, Brenneis, Dylan J A, Dawson, Michael R, Pilarski, Patrick M, Schofield, Jonathon S
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 3D-printed prosthetics; Commercially available hand prostheses; Hand prosthesis; Prosthetics; Upper-limb prosthetic evaluation; Upper-limb prosthetics
• ISSN: 2524-4426; 2524-4426
• DOI: 10.1186/s42490-024-00086-w

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.