Kinematic Comparison of a Multigrip and a Single-grip Myoelectric Prosthetic Hand with Different Hand Alignments during a Manual Manipulation Task: A Case Study

Background: Multigrip myoelectric hands have been developed to improve functional and cosmetic outcomes for individuals with upper limb amputation. However, kinematic evidence comparing these devices with single-grip myoelectric hands during tasks simulating daily movements remains limited. Objective: To compare the kinematic characteristics and compensatory movements of a multigrip hand (MH) and a single-grip hand during a manual manipulation task. Study Design: Single-case comparative motion analysis study. Methods: A 32-year-old male with right transradial amputation performed a custom Box and Block Test-based task using a Michelangelo hand (MH) and a Dynamic Mode Control Plus (single-grip hand), with the MH tested in the opposition grip. Kinematic data from a motion capture system were analyzed for upper trunk and shoulder joint angles during the grasping, transferring, and releasing phases. Maximum joint angles were statistically compared, and subjective ease of use was rated using a visual analog scale. Results: The Dynamic Mode Control Plus resulted in greater shoulder flexion, internal rotation, forward tilt, and axial rotation. The Michelangelo hand showed slightly greater abduction and trunk lateral tilt. Visual analog scale scores favored the Michelangelo hand despite its greater perceived weight. Conclusions: The Michelangelo hand promoted more physiologic motion strategies and reduced compensatory movements, even in the opposition grip. These findings suggest that prosthetic design—particularly wrist and finger alignment—may influence functional performance. Clinical Relevance: This study highlights the importance of considering compensatory motion and the user experience in the context of prosthesis selection. MHs may reduce biomechanical stress during functional tasks, even in the opposition grip, thus contributing to improved long-term outcomes. ( J Prosthet Orthot . 2026;X:XX–XX)