Esper Hand for Active Users: Work, Travel, Exercise and Daily Life

There is no single definition of an “active prosthetic user.”

For one person, active use may mean working eight hours at a computer. For another, it means teaching, running a business, travelling, driving, working with tools, training, or moving between several of these activities in the same day.

At Esper, we work with people whose routines look very different. Fedir runs his own café and works behind the espresso machine. Olena Pozniakova works as a QA engineer. Alexis Cholas works in rehabilitation after previously working as a surgeon. Jelena is a Quality Engineer in the automotive industry. Oleksandr is a QA Lead, veteran, father, driver, and has even taken part in a rally as a co-driver.

Others make music, solder drones, train, travel, or simply want a prosthetic hand that can keep up with everyday routines.

These are very different lives, but they illustrate the same principle:

The best prosthetic hand for an active user is not necessarily the hand with the longest specification sheet. It is the prosthetic system that best supports the activities that person actually needs to perform.

What makes a prosthetic hand suitable for an active user?

For someone who regularly moves between work, home, travel, exercise, and social activities, several factors can be particularly important:

• reliable control;

• comfortable socket fit;

• weight;

• durability;

• grip versatility;

• battery life;

• water resistance;

• access to service and repairs;

• ability to interact with phones, computers, tools, utensils, bags, and other everyday objects.

The prosthetic hand itself is also only one part of the complete system.

Socket design, electrode positioning, EMG signal quality, training, rehabilitation, wrist components, and appropriate configuration all affect how useful a myoelectric hand is in everyday life.

That is why the right question is rarely simply:

“Which prosthetic hand has the most features?”

A more useful question is:

“Which prosthetic system best supports the activities this person actually needs to perform?”

What active prosthetic use looks like in real life

Specifications become more useful when they are connected to real tasks.

Esper Hand users have been documented performing or returning to very different types of work, mobility, recreation, and everyday activities:

These are individual examples rather than guarantees of performance for every user. They also show why an “active user” should not be defined only by sport or heavy physical work.

The Associated Press documented Alexis Cholas using his Esper prosthesis while examining patients, removing bandages, and dressing wounds at a rehabilitation centre in Kyiv. After losing his right arm while serving as a volunteer combat medic during Russia's war against Ukraine, Alexis returned to healthcare as a rehabilitation specialist and also resumed volunteering as a combat medic.

For Alexis, the difference is not just about performing individual tasks:

“When I have the bionic arm on, I feel comfortable. It's like a part of you.”

He told the Associated Press that he feels uncomfortable without the prosthesis, illustrating how daily prosthetic use can extend beyond isolated functional tasks and become part of a person's normal routine.

Olena Pozniakova provides a very different example. The Kyiv Independent reported that after living without a prosthesis for 26 years, she adapted to her Esper Hand in about a week. She works in quality assurance and has also been involved in testing Esper technology.

Speaking about her experience with the prosthesis at VivaTech, Olena put the practical impact simply:

“It changed my life because as of now, I feel independent.”

She also described feeling more confident performing activities independently rather than asking other people for help.

Fedir, an Esper Hand user and veteran of the Russian-Ukrainian war, opened the café he had dreamed about during rehabilitation. When we visited him, he was behind the espresso machine preparing drinks for customers and running the business.

Mykola uses his prosthesis while working with electronics and soldering drones. His story has been documented as an example of returning to technical work after limb loss.

These examples reinforce a basic principle of upper-limb prosthetics: the relevant question is not simply how advanced a hand is, but what the person needs to do with it every day.

Prosthetic hands for work

Work is one of the clearest examples of why prosthetic requirements differ from person to person.

A QA engineer may spend hours typing, navigating software, handling a phone, and moving between desk tasks.

A school teacher may need to work with a laptop, papers, markers, books, classroom equipment, and dozens of small objects throughout the day.

A café owner repeatedly interacts with cups, handles, bottles, food, and equipment.

Someone working with electronics may need controlled manipulation of small components.

A rehabilitation specialist may need to hold medical materials, stabilise objects, and work directly with patients.

Jelena adds another example. She is a Quality Engineer in the automotive industry and a co-founder of a Serbian non-profit organisation supporting people with limb differences. She was born without her left hand and has used prostheses for most of her life.

After her first week with Esper Hand 2, she described the difference through very ordinary activities:

“Doing everyday things, like driving my car, holding a cup, typing or doing makeup, feels effortless.”

She also highlighted Bottle grip as one of the functions she found particularly useful, describing it as “sturdy, reliable and feels strong and secure.”

Her experience illustrates an important part of prosthetic customisation: useful grip patterns are not abstract features. Their value depends on whether they support tasks that recur throughout a person's actual day.

The “best prosthetic hand for work” is therefore not one specific configuration. It is a prosthetic solution that matches the repeated tasks a person needs to perform during their working day.

Wear time: how much is a prosthetic hand actually used?

Wear time can provide useful information about how a prosthesis fits into everyday life, but it needs to be interpreted carefully.

Based on current real-world usage statistics reported by Esper, users spend an average of approximately 4 hours per day using the Esper Hand.

This is company-reported usage data rather than a published clinical trial. The publicly available dataset does not currently specify details such as sample size or the exact methodology used to calculate the figure.

There is another important distinction:

Wear time is not necessarily the same as active hand use.

Research on upper-limb prostheses has shown that a device may be worn while the terminal device is only occasionally activated. A prosthetic hand can also stabilise or support an object without performing an active grip.

For that reason, we treat wear time as one indicator of everyday adoption rather than a standalone measure of functional performance.

Prosthetic hands for daily life

Most prosthetic use does not happen during exceptional moments.

It happens while holding a phone, carrying groceries, opening doors, eating, dressing, working at a desk, holding a cup, driving, or completing household tasks.

Esper Hand 2 is a multi-articulating myoelectric prosthetic hand with six independent motors, proportional EMG-based control, and individual finger movement.

We designed the current generation around daily use and active routines, with stronger aluminium fingers, improved finger pads, configurable grip shortcuts, and setup through the Esper+ App.

That versatility matters because everyday activities rarely rely on one type of grip.

A phone requires a different interaction from a shopping bag. A coffee cup is different from a keyboard. Food preparation is different from holding a pen or opening a door.

Jelena's experience shows this variety particularly clearly. Her early use of Esper Hand 2 included a cup, keyboard, makeup, driving, and other ordinary objects rather than one specialised task alone.

This is why grips and control settings can be adjusted instead of treating every user as if they have exactly the same routine.

How much load can Esper Hand 2 carry?

For active users, “strong” should be expressed in measurable terms.

According to the current Esper Hand 2 technical specifications:

These figures describe specified limits of the hand itself. They should not be interpreted as recommended everyday working loads.

The complete prosthetic system matters.

Socket design, wrist components, connectors, residual-limb anatomy, and the direction and duration of the load can introduce additional limitations. A socket, for example, may have a lower practical load limit than the terminal device.

This is why load capacity should always be discussed at the system level with the prosthetist.

What happens when a prosthetic hand is pushed beyond normal use?

Real-world experience shows why this distinction matters.

The Kyiv Independent documented the experience of Borys Bass, an Esper Hand user and Ukrainian unit commander who lost his arm in a mine explosion.

Bass reported damaging components of an earlier Esper Hand during military training and shooting. He described putting unusually high pressure through the prosthesis, including supporting substantial body weight while taking a position to use a machine gun.

His own explanation makes the difference between normal and extreme loading clear:

“If you try to shoot a machine gun with it, it's too much load.”

Bass also explained that putting his body weight through the prosthesis while moving into a firing position created particularly high pressure on the hand.

This was an extreme use case rather than normal everyday loading.

Feedback from users operating under demanding conditions contributed to the development of stronger components. Esper Hand 2 now uses aluminium fingers as standard.

The lesson is not that a rated load should be treated as a target.

Load type, direction, duration, socket design, and the complete prosthetic configuration matter alongside the headline kilogram figure.

Durable does not mean indestructible.

Prosthetic hands for driving and travel

Travel changes what matters in a prosthesis.

Users may spend more time away from their prosthetist, move through unpredictable weather, use the hand for longer periods, carry luggage, interact with transport systems, and rely heavily on smartphones.

Battery life, durability, water resistance, and repairability can therefore become especially important.

Driving can also be an important part of personal independence for some upper-limb prosthesis users.

Oleksandr, an Esper user, QA Lead, veteran, and father, lost a hand and a leg after being wounded in the Kharkiv region.

For him, returning to the driver's seat had particular meaning:

“A separate kind of joy for me is driving.”

He started with short drives around his neighbourhood and gradually increased the distance until he felt confident driving again.

Later, he took that interest further by participating as a co-driver in a rally in Spain.

His role required him to follow the odometer, compare it with checkpoints, work with a road book received shortly before the start, and guide the driver across uneven terrain at speed.

His motivation was also personal:

“I want to be an example for my son.”

For Oleksandr, participating in the rally was a way to show that losing an arm and a leg did not have to mean abandoning challenging activities.

This story should not be interpreted as evidence that one prosthetic hand is suitable for every driving situation or motorsport environment. Driving requirements, adaptations, local regulations, and individual abilities vary.

What it does illustrate is that “active life” can include much more than exercise. Independence may involve commuting, travelling, driving, working, parenting, or returning to activities that initially seem difficult after limb loss.

For an active traveller, one practical question can therefore be just as relevant as grip strength or the number of available grips:

What happens if something goes wrong while I depend on the prosthesis every day?

What happens when a prosthetic hand needs repair?

Serviceability matters particularly for people who use their prosthesis at work and throughout their daily routines.

Esper Hand uses a modular architecture designed to allow individual components to be serviced or replaced instead of automatically replacing the complete hand.

In appropriate cases, serviceable modules can also be handled locally by trained clinicians.

Esper's current real-world statistics report that approximately 5% of users used the service over a period of more than two years.

This figure should not be interpreted as a 5% device failure rate. The publicly available data does not specify the cohort, exact definition of a service case, or reason for every service request.

Independent reporting also shows why local service infrastructure can matter.

The Associated Press noted that having Esper manufacturing and service capabilities in Ukraine can allow Ukrainian users to access repairs or resizing without travelling abroad.

Our Ukrainian users also have access to Esper's service department in Kyiv.

For someone who depends on a prosthetic hand every day, useful questions during the fitting process include:

• Where can the device be repaired?

• Can individual components be replaced?

• Does the complete hand need to be shipped away?

• Is local clinician servicing available?

• What happens if the user needs the prosthesis for work during the repair period?

Repairability is not as visible as grip count or maximum force, but in real life it can be just as important.

Water resistance: what IPX5 means for Esper Hand 2

Esper Hand 2 has an IPX5 water-resistance rating without a protective glove.

In practical terms, the hand is designed for common everyday exposure such as rain, handwashing, and dishwashing.

After water exposure, the hand should be wiped dry and allowed to air-dry at room temperature.

But IPX5 does not mean waterproof.

Esper Hand 2 should not be:

• submerged in water;

• used for swimming;

• exposed to high-pressure water;

• exposed to salt water;

• exposed to chlorinated water.

There is another important distinction for anyone comparing waterproof or water-resistant prosthetic hands:

The water rating of the prosthetic hand does not automatically define the water protection of the complete prosthetic system.

The socket, wrist, connectors, electronics, or other components may have different environmental limitations.

For that reason, water exposure should be discussed with the prosthetist at the system level rather than judged from the terminal device's IP rating alone.

Prosthetic hands for exercise and sport

Sport is where the idea of one universal “best prosthetic hand” becomes particularly problematic.

A multi-articulating hand can be useful for many recreational and training activities, but it does not automatically make it the optimal device for every sport.

Kyrylo is a good example.

He is a young swimmer, Esper Hand user, and athlete who reached Ukraine's Candidate Master of Sports level in swimming at age 13.

When Kyrylo was fitted at Protez Foundation in the United States, the clinical team created three different prosthetic solutions for him:

• a bionic hand;

• a mechanical prosthesis;

• a swimming-specific prosthesis.

The distinction matters.

Kyrylo uses Esper Hand as his bionic solution, but not as his swimming hand. Esper Hand 2 is IPX5 water-resistant and is not intended for swimming or full submersion.

For highly active people, the most functional answer may therefore involve more than one terminal device.

A multi-articulating hand may cover work, travel, social interaction, digital devices, and everyday activities, while a specialised prosthesis may be better suited to swimming, high-impact sport, heavy training, cycling, or another specific activity.

What activities is Esper Hand 2 not designed for?

Durability does not mean that a multi-articulating bionic hand is designed for every physical activity.

According to current Esper Hand 2 technical guidance, the hand is not intended for high-impact or extreme activities such as:

• rock climbing;

• skiing;

• powerlifting;

• mountain biking.

The device should also not be subjected to loads above its specified limits.

Swimming and full water submersion are not supported.

This is an important distinction for active users.

Using a specialised terminal device for a particular activity does not make a bionic hand a worse solution. The objective of prosthetic care is not to make one device perform every conceivable task.

It is to create the most functional overall solution for the person's real life.

What we have learned from veterans of the Russian-Ukrainian war

Our work in Ukraine has given us unusually direct feedback about what happens when prosthetic technology is used under demanding real-world conditions.

Russia's full-scale invasion created a major need for upper-limb prosthetic care, including for people who wanted to return not only to everyday activities but also to work, rehabilitation, technical professions, travel, and in some cases military service.

The experiences are very different.

Illia “Gandalf” Samoilenko continues his military career and uses Esper Hand 2.

Alexis Cholas returned to healthcare and rehabilitation after previously working as a surgeon.

Fedir opened a café and works behind his own bar.

Mykola works with electronics and solders drones.

Borys Bass provided important feedback about durability after pushing an earlier generation of Esper Hand far beyond typical everyday loading during military training.

Oleksandr returned to driving after losing both an arm and a leg and later participated in a rally in Spain as a co-driver.

Other Esper users work in software and QA, education, creative industries, engineering, technical professions, and many other fields.

Their prosthetic requirements cannot be identical—and they should not be treated as if they are.

For us, “returning to an active life” does not describe one activity.

It means enabling people to return to the activities that matter in their own lives.

What clinicians consider when choosing a prosthetic hand

Product specifications are only one part of the clinical decision.

Anton Haidash, a prosthetist at the UNBROKEN rehabilitation centre in Lviv, told the Associated Press that factors including the nature of a person's injury and their occupation can affect prosthesis selection.

This reflects the broader approach we recommend at Esper.

Before selecting a prosthetic hand, the clinical team should consider:

• residual-limb anatomy and amputation level;

• socket design and comfort;

• EMG signal quality and electrode positioning;

• repeated work and household tasks;

• expected loads;

• exposure to water and environmental conditions;

• hobbies and sport;

• control and training requirements;

• access to repairs and replacement components.

The choice should be made together with a qualified prosthetist based on anatomy, functional goals, occupation, hobbies, lifestyle, and daily needs.

Is Esper Hand 2 a good prosthetic hand for active users?

Esper Hand 2 was designed with daily use and active routines in mind.

It combines:

• six independently driven motors;

• proportional EMG control;

• individual finger movement;

• configurable grips;

• stronger aluminium fingers;

• up to 35 kg static carry load depending on hand size;

• IPX5 water resistance;

• app-based configuration through Esper+;

• modular servicing.

But we do not think choosing a prosthetic hand should come down to asking whether one product is “the best” in every possible situation.

For a person whose normal week includes work, computer use, smartphones, household activities, social life, travel, driving, carrying everyday objects, and moderate physical activity, a multi-articulating myoelectric hand can provide a broad range of functions in one device.

For swimming, extremely high loads, high-impact activities, or highly specialised work, another terminal device may sometimes be more appropriate.

That is not a limitation unique to Esper Hand.

It is part of choosing prosthetic technology around human activity rather than expecting one device to perform every possible job.

The best prosthetic hand depends on the user

There is no universal “best prosthetic hand for active users.”

A café owner, software engineer, automotive quality engineer, swimmer, teacher, rehabilitation specialist, military veteran, technician, traveller, or driver may all define active use differently.

The most useful comparison therefore combines technical specifications with practical questions:

What will I actually do with this hand?

How much and how often will I use it?

What loads will I place on it?

Will it be exposed to water?

What activities require a specialised device?

How will repairs and servicing work?

And what does my prosthetist recommend for my anatomy and goals?

Those questions provide a more realistic starting point than simply comparing grip counts, maximum force, or feature lists.

For active prosthetic users, the best solution is the one designed around real life.