Gait and balance of transfemoral amputees using passive mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees

Kaufman, Kenton R.; Levine, James A.; Brey, Robert H.; Iverson, B. K.; McCrady, Shelly K.; Padgett, Denny J.; Joyner, Michael J.

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.07.011

Cited by 169 publications

(153 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their complex interaction of various functional principles used for generating joint resistances are implemented by control algorithms and sensor technology that directly affect movement and safety outcomes for lower-limb amputees [2][3][4]. For the patient, the resultant functional quality [2,5,8,12,17,18,24,[30][31][32], and the reduction in falls some MPKs provide [3,7,11,16], is of central importance. The challenge for prosthetic practitioners and patients alike is how to select the appropriate MPK to meet the functional needs of the lower-limb amputee.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designs and performance of microprocessor-controlled knee joints

Thiele

Westebbe

Bellmann

et al. 2014

Biomedizinische Technik/Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this comparative study, three transfemoral amputee subjects were fitted with four different microprocessor-controlled exoprosthetic knee joints (MPK): C-Leg, Orion, Plié2.0, and Rel-K. In a motion analysis laboratory, objective gait measures were acquired during level walking at different velocities. Subsequent technical analyses, which involved X-ray computed tomography, identified the functional mechanisms of each device and enabled corroboration of the performance in the gait laboratory by the engineering design of the MPK. Gait measures showed that the mean increase of the maximum knee flexion angle at different walking velocities was closest in value to the unaffected contralateral knee (6.2°/m/s) with C-Leg (3.5°/m/s; Rel-K 17.0°/m/s, Orion 18.3°/m/s, and Plié2.0 28.1°/m/s). Technical analyses corroborated that only with Plié2.0 the flexion resistances were not regulated by microprocessor control at different walking velocities. The muscular effort for the initiation of the swing phase, measured by the minimum hip moment, was found to be lowest with C-Leg . Reaching the extension stop at the end of swing phase was reliably executed with both Plié2.0 and C-Leg. Abrupt terminal stance phase extension observed with Plié2.0 and Rel-K could be attributed to the absence of microprocessor control of extension resistance.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designs and performance of microprocessor-controlled knee joints

Thiele

Westebbe

Bellmann

et al. 2014

Biomedizinische Technik/Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As previously conducted trials show mixed and conflicting results on spatiotemporal and kinematic variables, our results are both in line and conflicting with previously conducted trials. If we look at knee yielding for instance, both trials reporting no differences in knee yielding 11,12,144 as an increase in knee yielding 7,29 are available (respectively 8 and 1 degrees).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Gait Mechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Gait Mechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22 The publication by Highsmith et al 36 presents some additional calculations based on previously published results. 29 Because these results could not be combined with the results of other studies, the publication of Highsmith et al is omitted.…”

Section: Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations