Perceived stability, function, and satisfaction among transfemoral amputees using microprocessor and nonmicroprocessor controlled prosthetic knees: A multicenter survey

Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 32-42

  Berry, Dale ^a   Olson, Mark D ^b   Larntz, Kinley ^c  

^a Hanger Orthopedic Group Inc   (United States)

^b Alquest Inc   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Amputee; Artificial limb; Microprocessor; Prosthesis; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

EID: 58449129080     PISSN: 10408800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/JPO.0b013e318195b1d1     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Mayfield JA, Reiber GE, Maynard C, et al. Survival following lower-limb amputation in a veteran population. J Rehabil Res Dev 2001;38:341-345.
2. Breakey JW. Body image: the lower-limb amputee. J Prosthet Orthot 1997;9:58-66.
3. Houghton AD, Nicholls G, Houghton AL, et al. Phantom pain: natural history and association with rehabilitation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1994;76:22-25.
4. Leung EC-C, Rush PJ, Devlin M. Predicting prosthetic rehabilitation outcome in lower limb amputee patients with the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:605-608.
5. Mueller MJ, Allen BT, Sinacore DR. Incidence of skin breakdown and higher amputation after transmetatarsal amputation: implications for rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995;76:50-54.
6. Weiss GN, Gorton TA, Read RC, Neal NA. Outcomes of lower extremity amputations. J Am Geriatr Soc 1990;38:877-883.
7. Geertzen JH, Martina JD, Rietman HS. Lower limb amputation. Part 2: rehabilitation - a 10 year literature review. Prosthet Orthot Int 2001;25:14-20.
8. Habel M. 2004. Artificial limbs: hope for the future. Available at: http://www2.nurseweek.com/ce/self-study_modules/course.html?CCID=2749. Accessed October 2005.
9. Frykberg RG, Arora S, Pomposelli FB, LoFerfo F. Functional outcome in the elderly following lower extremity amputation. J Foot Ankle Surg 1998;37:181-185.
10. Legro MW, Reiber G, del Aguila M, et al. Issues of importance reported by persons with lower limb amputations and prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev 1999;36:155-163.
11. Desmond D, MacLachlan M. Psychosocial issues in the field of prosthetics and orthotics. J Prosthet Orthot 2002;14:19.
12. Michael JW. Prosthetic knees. In: First Step: A Guide for Adapting to Limb Loss. 2005 ed. Knoxville, TN: The National Limb Loss Information Center (NLLIC); 2001:46-49.
13. Romo HD. Prosthetic knees. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am 2000;11:595-607.
14. Michael JW. Modern prosthetic knee mechanisms. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999;361:39-47.
15. Short CA, O'Connell CM, Kirby RL, et al. Prostheses for persons with lower-limb amputations: an extra joint increases range of motion. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80:854-856.
16. Datta D, Howitt J. Conventional versus microchip controlled swing phase control for transfemoral amputees: user's verdict. Prosthet Orthot Int 1998;22:129-135.
17. Martin CW. 2003. Otto Bock C-Leg: a review of its effectiveness. Available at: http://worksafebc.com/health_care_providers/Assets/PDF/ Otto_Bock_Cleg.pdf#search=%22c%201eg%22. Accessed July 2005.
18. Washington Department of Labor and Industries. 2002. Technology assessment microprocessor controlled prosthetic knees. WA: Office of the Medical Directory; 9 p. Available at: http:// www.lni.wa.gov/ClaimsIns/Files/OMD/ ProstKneesTA.pdf#search=%22Technology%20Assessment%2C%20Microprocessor controlled%20Prosthetic%20Knees%22. Accessed October 2005.
19. [FDA] Food and Drug Administration (US). 1999. C-leg (3C100). 510(k) Summary of safety and effectiveness. Report no. K991590. 6 p. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k991590.pdf. Accessed June 2005.
20. Flynn D. 2006. VA Technology Assessment Program short report-computerized lower limb prosthesis. Available at: http://www.va.gov/Vatap/pubs/ ta_short_3_00.pdf. Accessed June 2005.
21. Lemaire ED, Fawcett JA. Using NetMeeting for remote configuration of the Otto Bock C-Leg: technical considerations. Prosthet Orthot Int 2002;26:154-158.
22. [DVA] Department of Veterans Affairs (US). 2000. Prescribing guidelines for provision of computerized lower extremity prosthesis. Available at: http://www.va.gov/vatap/topic_prosthetics.htm. Accessed June 2004.
23. Nemeth JA, ed. Editorial summary report: microprocessor knee patient evaluation protocol. J Prosthet Orthot 2004;16:31-39.
24. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. 2003. Provider Bull. Olympia, WA: Health Services Analysis Section. Report no. PB 03-02. 8 p. Available at: http://www.lni.wa.gov/ClaimsIns/Files/Providers/ProvBulletins/ PbFiles/PB0302.pdf. Accessed June 2005.
25. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932;140:1-55.
26. Scheuren F. (The American Statistical Association). 2004. What is a Survey? 2 ed. 68 p. Available at: http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/ pamphletpdf. Accessed July 2004.
27. Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, et al. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88:207-217.
28. Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ, Hubbard SL. Comparison of non-microprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on prosthesis evaluation questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008;45:1-14.
29. Kaufman KR, Levine JA, Brey RH, et al. Gait and balance of transfemoral amputees using passive mechanical and microprocessor controlled prosthetic knees. Gait Posture 2007;26: 489-493.
30. Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Jarasch R. Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: the influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components. Gait Posture 2002;16:255-263.
31. Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Marx B. Biomechanical analysis of stair ambulation in lower limb amputees. Gait Posture 2007;25: 267-278.
32. Seymour R, Engbretson B, Kott K, Ordway N, Brooks G, Crannell J, Hickernell E, Wheller K. Comparison between the C-Leg(R) microprocessor- controlled prosthetic knee and non-microprocessor control prosthetic knees: a preliminary study of energy expenditure, obstacle course performance, and quality of life survey. Prosth Orthot Intern 2007;31:51-61.
33. Chin T, et al. Comparison of different microprocessor controlled knee joints on the energy consumption during walking in transfemoral amputees: intelligent knee prosthesis (IP) versus C-Leg. Prosth Orthotics Intern 2006;30:73-80.
34. Orendurff MS, et al. Gait efficiency using the C-Leg. J Rehab Res Devel. 2006;43:239-246.
35. Datta D, et al. A comparative evaluation of oxygen consumption and gait pattern in amputees using intelligent prostheses and conventionally damped knee swing-phase control. Clinical Rehabilitation 2005;19:398-403.
36. Johansson JL, et al. A clinical comparison of variable damping and mechanical passive prosthetic knee devices. Amer J Phys Med Rehab 2005;84:563-575.
37. Gerzeli S, Torbica A, Fattore G. Cost utility analysis of knee prosthesis with complete microprocessor control (C-Leg) compared with mechanical technology in trans-femoral amputees. Eur J Health Econ 2008 [Epub ahead of print].
38. Brodkorb TH, Henniksson M, Johanneson-Munk K, Thidell F. Cost-effectiveness of C-leg compared with non-microprocessor controlled knees: a modeling approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:24-30.