INTRODUCTION
Assessing outcomes for extracorporeal orthotic and prosthetic clinical and technological intervention may seem fairly straightforward. However, the resulting subjective interpretation might not fully capture or accurately reflect the underlying biological issues involved in the physical restoration and rehabilitation of individuals with desensitized or missing limbs. Further, such subjective inquisition does not represent “hard” science, and the results of this method of inquiry are likely to be less than convincing to third-party payers. Thus, there is a need to develop a reproducible, consistent-and most importantly-a predictable method to scientifically test or prove that a specific intervention modality is preferable to another. To do this, we need to find answers to the following questions: What are the underlying biological issues involved in physical restoration and rehabilitation? What makes a mechanical device biological, and how can clinical efficacy of a biomechanical device be physically measured? The answers to these questions lie in understanding how applied biomechanics and neural mechanisms interact to facilitate the correlation of sensory perception skills with normal body imagery skills and to acquire sensorimotor skills to control and manipulate the orthotic, prosthetic, or robotic device.
Support authors and subscribe to content
This is premium stuff. Subscribe to read the entire article.
