A comparative evaluation of the Adaptive® knee and Catech® knee joints

Abstract

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.

Adapting to change : influence if a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee on gait adaptations

“…There is a low level of evidence that the use of stance and swing MPKs result in an increased preferred walking speed, 11,12,25,26 equivalent spatiotemporal symmetry, 11,12,27,28 and increased prosthetic knee moment 11,12,29 when compared with the use of NMPKs. In addition, there is insufficient evidence that the use of stance and swing MPKs result in equivalent peak prosthetic knee flexion angle during early stance at preferred walking speed 7,12,29 and equivalent prosthetic power in late stance 11,12 when compared to the use of NMPKs.…”

“…[26][27][28]32 Next to this, there is insufficient evidence that the use of stance and swing phase MPKs results in decrease in subject-reported frustration with falling when compared with the use of NMPKs. 27,32 Finally, there is moderate evidence that the use of stance and swing MPKs result in increased subject-reported confidence while walking when compared with the use of NMPKs.…”

“…There is a low level of evidence that the use of swing and stance MPKs results in increased subject-reported preference [25][26][27][28] and satisfaction 26,27 when compared with using NMPKs.…”

“…7,20 There are indications that the use of a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees result in a lower number of subject-reported stumbles and falls when compared to the use of non-microprocessorcontrolled prosthetic knees. [26][27][28]32 There is, however, no biomechanical explanation available for these observed differences. One possible explanation could be found in previous research studying the responses to platform perturbations.…”

“…28,31,139 We are aware of one study comparing prosthetic knee kinematics of walking with the Rheo Knee with walking with a NMPK.…”