Comparative Biomechanical Analysis of Current Microprocessor-Controlled Prosthetic Knee Joints

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 91, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 644-652

  Bellmann, Malte ^a   Schmalz, Thomas ^a   Blumentritt, Siegmar ^a,b  

^a Otto Bock HealthCare GmbH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Prostheses and implants; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BELOW KNEE AMPUTATION; BIOMECHANICS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENERGY CONSUMPTION; FALL RISK; FALLING; FEMALE; HUMAN; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MALE; MICROPROCESSOR; WALKING; WALKING SPEED; WEIGHT BEARING;

ACCIDENTAL FALLS; ADULT; AMPUTATION; BIOMECHANICS; ENERGY METABOLISM; FEMALE; GAIT; HUMANS; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MALE; MICROCOMPUTERS; MIDDLE AGED; WALKING;

EID: 77950609119     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.12.014     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Kastner J., Nimmervoll R., and Wagner P. Was kann das C-Leg?-Ganganalytischer Vergleich von C-Leg, 3R45 und 3R80. Med Orth Tech 119 (1999) 131-137
2. Schmalz T., Blumentritt S., and Jarasch R. Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: the influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components. Gait Posture 16 (2002) 255-263
3. Nimmervoll R., Kastner J., and Kristen H. The C-Leg experience-a gait analysis comparison with conventional prosthetic knee joints. Orthopädie-Technik 54 (2003) 562-565
4. Wetz H.H., Hafkemeyer U., Wühr J., and Drerup B. Einfluss des C-Leg-Kniegelenk-Passteiles der Fa. Otto Bock auf die Versorgungsqualität Oberschenkelamputierter. Orthopäde 34 (2005) 298-317
5. Segal A.D., Orendurff M.S., Klute G.K., et al. Kinematic and kinetic comparison of transfemoral amputee gait using C-Leg and Mauch SNS prosthetic knees. J Rehabil Res Dev 43 (2006) 857-870
6. Kaufmann K.R., Levine J.A., Brye R.H., et al. Gait and balance of transfemoral amputees using passive mechanical and microprocessor controlled prosthetic knees. Gait Posture 26 (2007) 489-493
7. Taylor M., Clark E., Offord E., and Baxter C. A comparison of energy expenditure by a high level trans-femoral amputee using the intelligent prostheses and conventionally damped prosthetic limbs. Prosthet Orthot Int 20 (1996) 116-121
8. Buckley J., Spence W.D., and Solomonidis S.E. Energy cost of walking: comparison of "intelligent prosthesis" with conventional mechanism. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 78 (1997) 114-121
9. 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
10. 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
11. Kaufmann K.R., Iverson B., Padgett D., Brey R.H., Levine J.A., and Joyner M.J. Do microprocessor-controlled knees work better?. J Biomechanics 39 (2006) 70 [abstract]
12. Seymour R., Engbertson B., Kott K., et al. Comparison between C-Leg microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee and non-microprocessor control prosthetic knees: a preliminary study of energy expenditure, obstacle course performance, and quality of life survey. Prosthet Orthot Int 31 (2007) 51-61
13. Orendurff M.S., Segal A.D., Klute G.K., McDowell M.L., Pecoraro P., and Czerniecki J. Gait efficiency using the C-Leg. J Rehabil Res Dev 43 (2006) 239-246
14. Schmalz T., Blumentritt S., and Altenburg B. Biomechanische Analyse des Schrägen- und Treppengehens mit aktuellen Kniepassteilen. Orthopädie-Technik 57 (2006) 682-693
15. Schmalz T., Blumentritt S., and Jarasch R. Biomechanical analysis of stair ambulation in lower limb amputees. Gait Posture 25 (2007) 267-278
16. Kastner J., and Weber M. Bergabgehen mit Oberschenkelprothesen. Orthopädie-Technik 57 (2006) 612-616
17. Blumentritt S. Exoprothetische Kniemechanismen mit Umschreibung des Indikationsbereiches. APO Rev 25 (2006) 8-18
18. Blumentritt S., Schmalz T., and Jarasch R. The safety of C-Leg: biomechanical tests. J Prosthet Orthot 21 (2009) 2-15
19. Veltmann U., Wühr J., Linkemeyer L., and Wetz H.H. C-Leg and RheoKnee: are they interchangeable? ISPO Congress 2007, Vancouver, Canada (2007), Canadian National Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics, Vancouver 286 [abstract]
20. Chin T., Machida K., Sawamura S., et al. Comparision of different microprocessor controlled knee joints on the energy consumption during walking in trans-femoral amputees: Intelligent Knee (IP) versus C-Leg. Prosthet Orthot Int 30 (2006) 73-80
21. Otto Bock HealthCare GmbH. Instruction manual C-Leg (2006), Otto Bock HealthCare GmbH, Duderstadt, Germany
22. Ortho-Reha-Neuhof GmbH. Instruction manual Synergy (2006), Ortho-Reha-Neuhof GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany
23. Endolite Blatchford Products Ltd. Instruction manual Adaptive 2 (2006), Hampshire, UK: Endolite Blatchford Products Ltd, Össur Europe BV
24. Össur Europe BV. Instruction manual Rheo Knee (2006) Eindhoven, The Netherlands
25. Nietert M. Das Kniegelenk des Menschen als biomechanisches Problem. Biomedizinische Technik 22 (1977) 13-21
26. Otto Bock HealthCare GmbH. Instruction for alignment of transfemoral prostheses, order number 646F219=GB/3 (2008)
27. Swanson E., Stube J., and Edman P. Function and body image levels in individuals with transfemoral amputations using the C-Leg. J Prosthet Orthot 17 (2005) 80-84
28. Bunce D.J., and Breakey J.W. The impact of C-Leg on the physical and psychological adjustment to transfemoral amputation. JPO 19 (2007) 7-14
29. Schiller R. Das Synergy-Knie-eine neue Lösung zur Steuerung von Stand- und Schwungphase. Orthopädie-Technik 57 (2006) 180-183