Since the Dark Ages, mankind has sought innovative solutions to a problem that has plagued them for centuries. Soldiers who were amputated and left handicapped from the horrors of war struggled to find a functional answer to their situation. Peg legs and hand hooks were one of the first developments in ancient prosthetics. However, they were unwieldy and difficult to hide. It was not until the early 1400’s that prosthetics were created with functionality and subtlety in mind. During this time in history, they were designed to mimic actual hands and limbs making it much easier to hide one’s handicap.
Regardless, this advancement did not solve the problem of the prosthesis’ unwieldiness, nor did it allow the prosthesis to fully replicate the mechanical functions of the limb they were designed to replace. However, as we usher into an era of technological advancements, many companies have sought to create a solution that is both subtle and intuitive in design. There are three key issues that need to be addressed when designing prosthesis which are: intuitiveness, subtlety, and affordability. Regarding the first design principle, the prosthesis needs to be created with ease of use in mind.
Its operation should be natural to the user and mimic the functionality of the part it is replacing as closely as possible. If the artificial limb is too much of an encumbrance, the user may feel burdened by it as opposed to being assisted by it which contradicts the reason of getting a prosthetic in the first place. Abandonment of prosthetic limbs is common after the first year of use, as the disadvantages of a poorly designed limb outweigh the benefits. Consequently, if the prosthesis is not being used by its intended audience, then it cannot be considered a success.
Functionality and appearance go hand in hand; prosthesis needs to be easily concealed. The lack of a limb can often be seen as a source of embarrassment or shame to the amputee; they may feel that they can no longer be useful to society due to their handicap. In order to mitigate the emotional apprehension towards prosthetic limbs, they need to be easily concealed. Not only does the prosthetic limb need to mimic the functionality of the limb it is replacing, it also needs to appear like it too. The easier the alternate limb is to conceal, the easier it is for the amputee to avoid any judgment or prejudice due to their handicap.
Lastly, due to medical advances and the increased safety of amputations, the number of operations that result in the removal of limbs has increased over the past decade. As a result, more and more people are in desperate need of prosthetics. However, the growing price of modern day prosthetics often disenfranchises those who are less fortunate and unable to afford such exorbitant cost. It is necessary to acknowledge the audience that the product is directed towards. If the target audience cannot afford the product, then the product itself will be inaccessible except towards those with considerable wealth.
With each of these factors in mind, modern day prosthetics often sacrifice one factor in order to accommodate another. In particular, affordability is often sacrificed in exchange for intuitiveness and subtlety. While great for those who can afford it, those who cannot are often left with cheap, poorly made prosthetics as the desire to monetize prosthetic limbs often leads to lack of development of affordable options. With the above prerequisites in mind, I have compiled three possible solutions to the growing amputee population and the demand for better, more affordable prosthetics.
The first solution is presented by industrial design student, William Root, in the form of the “Exo Prosthetic Leg”. This solution addresses the prohibitive cost of many modern prosthetics and desires to simplify the process of creating the prosthesis itself. In Root’s article “Exo Prosthetic Leg” on Behance he acknowledges that “high cost and displeasing appearance” of modern day prosthetics is a “result of [a] flawed process of producing them. ” The limb is made from lightweight titanium and is created using modern day 3D printing technologies.
The second solution, created by Steeper group, the “Bebionic” hand sacrifices affordability for functionality and utility. The product itself is sleek, lightweight and easy to use. Bebionic states on their website, that it comes with a variety of features ranging from “14 selectable grip patterns”, “auto grip”, and “durable construction. ” The only drawback to the intuitiveness of the hand is the high cost itself which is easily offset by its numerous benefits. The third and most recent solution, a product of John Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), is the “Modular Bionic Arm.
Once again the product sacrifices affordability for functionality. On the John Hopkins APL website, it states that the arm itself is controlled by a “neural interface” and “more than 100 sensors” throughout the arm. This is easily the most technological advanced option of the three presented and as a result, the cost is equally high. I mention above that the three key features that need to be considered when designing prosthetics are: intuitiveness, subtlety, and affordability. Root’s “Exo Prosthetic Leg” was designed to minimize the robotic appearance and/or robotic feel that are prevalent in many modern prosthetics.
The solution lacks much of the functionality that is found in the more technological inclined prosthesis. The leg is unconstructive and can easily be covered with clothes, or a sleeve mirroring that of an actual human leg. The product has minimal functionality yet it is still intuitive in design in that it functions how a human leg would function. Additionally, the material and process in which it made minimizes the cost which drastically increases affordability. Overall, the product addresses the three main factors in good prosthetic design, albeit with less emphasis on intuitiveness or functionality.
Steeper’s “Bebionic” hand was designed to mirror the mechanical functions of the human hand as closely as possible. It achieves this by measuring the “electrical changes on the skin covering the control muscles” allowing the user to issue commands to the hand to produce the desired movements. The product is highly functional to an extent. It is limited fourteen different grip patterns. While this goes beyond your normal prosthetic, it still prevents the hand from replicating all the various positions of human hand.
Additionally, the hand operation requires some training as it is a very complex piece of technology. The hand is moderately easy to conceal in that a sleeve can cover it, a glove worn over it, etc. The cost is the most prohibitive factor as the price is around $11,000 worldwide. Lastly, John Hopkin’s “Modular Bionic Arm” is easily the most functional and intuitive of all three options as it uses a neural interface and multiple sensors located throughout the prosthesis to control the arm’s motor functions.
The product can once again be concealed with a sleeve adding to the appeal; however the process of installing the arm is a very arduous process and overall the implant is less “humanlike” than either of the other two options. Consequently as a result of the technology contained within the arm, the cost is equally restrictive and is estimated to range from $50,000 to $60,000 which affects the affordability and access to the arm.
