The microprocessor-controlled prosthesis was not found to be less cognitively demanding than a conventional prosthesis.

At lower speeds oxygen cost was lower with the Intelligent Prosthesis. Gait analysis detected no significant changes between the two legs.

A report of the outcome of fitting ICEROSS prostheses to trans-tibia] amputees from a sub-regional amputee rehabilitation centre is presented. This work has mainly concentrated on obtaining patients' own views to judge advantages and disadvantages of ICEROSS compared to their previous patellar-tendon-bearing (PTB) prostheses. Sixty-nine patients were entered for this study, but the results of the study are based on 54 patients who responded. Fifteen patients (27.7%) had rejected their ICEROSS prosthesis at the time of the study. Provision of ICEROSS prostheses did not improve indoor and outdoor walking abilities in terms of distance or use of other walking aids, nor were they more comfortable to wear. An increase in sweating in the first 3 months of wearing ICEROSS was significant, but settled afterwards. The amputees considered that the rate of stump skin breakdown with ICEROSS compared to their PTB prostheses was significantly less. Walking up and down stairs was more comfortable and in a general overall rating of ICEROSS prostheses they were scored significantly higher by the amputees themselves. It is concluded that appropriate patient selection is vital and in certain cases ICEROSS will provide considerable benefits to the amputees.

The Adaptive 1 knee joint is a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee that incorporates both pneumatic and hydraulic control in one electronic unit. Pneumatic control is said to provide control during swing phase and the hydraulic control during the stance phase of the gait. This hybrid controller is triggered by a computer contained within the knee that responds to input from force, time and angle sensors. The microprocessor then selects an appropriate speed and stability setting. The Catech 1 knee joint is a conventional hydraulic knee joint. The aim of this study was to compare the Adaptive 1 and Catech 1 knee joints in established trans-femoral amputees. The patients meeting the inclusion criteria were all established trans-femoral amputees using the Catech 1 knee joint. The study was carried out by performing gait analysis, assessing energy requirements using the Physiological Cost Index (PCI) and using questionnaires. There was no significant benefit gained from the use of the Adaptive 1 knee over the Catech 1 knee joint in our small study group.

The ICEX system (Ossur, Iceland), allows a socket to be manufactured directly onto the stump and is thought to provide improved comfort due to better pressure distribution whilst being easier to fit and manufacture. The aims of this project were to a) compare gait performance by measuring several gait characteristics, b) compare production and fitting times, c) investigate financial implications and d) attempt to gauge the amputees' subjective opinions of socket comfort. A randomised, controlled trial was conducted on 27 trans-tibial amputees with an existing patellar tendon bearing (PTB) socket on the Endolite system (Chas A. Blatchford, UK). Twenty one (21) subjects completed the study. Of these, 10 in the control group received new PTB sockets while 11 in the experimental group received ICEX. Gait analysis wearing existing sockets was performed and kinetic data obtained from a force plate. This was repeated with the new sockets after a 6 week period of adjustment. Mann-Whitney tests were used in statistical evaluations with a significance level of 5%. Subjects were asked to score their prosthesis for comfort using the Socket Comfort Score (Hanspal et al., 2003) and the frequency of visits for socket adjustments over a three-month period post-delivery of the sockets was recorded. This study demonstrates no significant difference in any of the gait parameters measured. Though the time required to manufacture a PTB prosthesis was found to be considerably longer than the ICEX, the overall cost for producing the ICEX was significantly greater. Subjects showed only minor comfort preference for the ICEX design and there was no significant difference in the mean number of visits for socket adjustments. In view of the considerable additional cost of providing ICEX and the lack of evidence of improvement in any parameter tested, the routine provision of ICEX prostheses to unselected trans-tibial amputees cannot be recommended.