Evaluation of Function, Performance, and Preference as Transfemoral Amputees Transition From Mechanical to Microprocessor Control of the Prosthetic Knee

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 88, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 207-217

  Hafner, Brian J ^a   Willingham, Laura L ^a   Buell, Noelle C ^a   Allyn, Katheryn J ^a   Smith, Douglas G ^a  

^a Prosthetics Research Study   (United States)

Author keywords

Amputees; Artificial limbs; Knee; Patient satisfaction; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COMMUNITY; DISABLED PERSON; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; EVALUATION; FALLING; FEMALE; FRUSTRATION; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; KNEE PROSTHESIS; LABORATORY; LEG AMPUTATION; LEG PROSTHESIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENTAL CONCENTRATION; MOBILIZATION; MUSCLE FUNCTION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF REPORT; SHORT FORM 36; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; AMPUTEES; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MALE; MICROCOMPUTERS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; QUESTIONNAIRES; WALKING;

EID: 33846473142     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Michael J.W. Modern prosthetic knee mechanisms. Clin Orthop Relat Res 361 (1999) 39-47 Apr
2. Zahedi S. The results of the field trial of the Endolite Intelligent Prosthesis (1993) Proceedings of the XII International Congress of INTERBOR; Sept 22-25; Lisbon (Portugal)
3. Datta D., and Howitt J. Conventional versus microchip controlled pneumatic swing phase control for trans-femoral amputees: user's verdict. Prosthet Orthot Int 22 (1998) 129-135
4. Taylor M.B., Clark E., Offord E.A., and Baxter C. A comparison of energy expenditure by a high level trans-femoral amputee using the Intelligent Prosthesis and conventionally damped prosthetic limbs. Prosthet Orthot Int 20 (1996) 116-121
5. Buckley J.G., Spence W.D., and Solomonidis S.E. Energy cost of walking: comparison of "intelligent prosthesis" with conventional mechanism. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 78 (1997) 330-333
6. Chin T., Sawamura S., Shiba R., et al. Effect of an Intelligent Prosthesis (IP) on the walking ability of young transfemoral amputees: comparison of IP users with able-bodied people. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 82 (2003) 447-451
7. Chin T., Sawamura S., Shiba R., Oyabu H., Nagakura Y., and Nakagawa A. Energy expenditure during walking in amputees after disarticulation of the hip. A microprocessor-controlled swing-phase control knee versus a mechanical-controlled stance-phase control knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87 (2005) 117-119
8. Datta D., Heller B., and Howitt J. A comparative evaluation of oxygen consumption and gait pattern in amputees using Intelligent Prostheses and conventionally damped knee swing-phase control. Clin Rehabil 19 (2005) 398-403
9. Heller B.W., Datta D., and Howitt J. A pilot study comparing the cognitive demand of walking for transfemoral amputees using the Intelligent Prosthesis with that using conventionally damped knees. Clin Rehabil 14 (2000) 518-522
10. Perry J., Burnfield J.M., Newsam C.J., and Conley P. Energy expenditure and gait characteristics of a bilateral amputee walking with C-leg prostheses compared with stubby and conventional articulating prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85 (2004) 1711-1717
11. Johansson J.L., Sherrill D.M., Riley P.O., Bonato P., and Herr H. A clinical comparison of variable-damping and mechanically passive prosthetic knee devices. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 84 (2005) 563-575
12. Chin T., Machida K., Sawamura S., et al. Comparison of different microprocessor controlled knee joints on the energy consumption during walking in trans-femoral amputees: Intelligent Knee Prosthesis (IP) versus C-Leg. Prosthet Orthot Int 30 (2006) 73-80
13. Schmalz T., Blumentritt S., and Jarasch R. [A comparison of different prosthetic knee joints during step over step stair descent]. [German]. Orthop Technik 7 (2002) 586-592
14. Gailey R.S., Roach K.E., Applegate E.B., et al. The Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP): an instrument designed to assess determinants of the lower limb amputee's ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83 (2002) 613-627
15. Buell N.C., Willingham L.L., Allyn K.J., Hafner B.J., and Smith D.G. In: Boone D. (Ed). Evaluation of gait style to ascend and descend stairs for lower limb amputees (2004) 367 Proceedings of the 11th World Congress of the International Society of Prosthetics and Orthotics; Aug 1-6; Hong Kong
16. Buell N.C., Willingham L.L., Allyn K.J., Hafner B.J., and Smith D.G. In: Boone D. (Ed). Evaluation of gait style for hill descent for lower limb amputees (2004) 53 Proceedings of the 11th World Congress of the International Society of Prosthetics and Orthotics; Aug 1-6; Hong Kong.
17. Legro M.W., Reiber G.D., Smith D.G., del Aguila M., Larsen J., and Boone D. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79 (1998) 931-938
18. Klute G.K., Berge J.S., Orendurff M.S., Williams R.M., and Czerniecki J.M. Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87 (2006) 717-722
19. English R.D., Hubbard W.A., and McElroy G.K. Establishment of consistent gait after fitting of new components. J Rehabil Res Dev 32 (1995) 32-35