Safety, Energy Efficiency, and Cost Efficacy of the C-Leg for Transfemoral Amputees: A Review of the Literature

The purpose of this paper was to review the literature through a structured literature review and provide a grade of recommendation for patient safety, gait energy efficiency, and cost effectiveness of the C-Leg microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee for transfemoral amputees. Medline (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) data bases were searched to identify potentially pertinent studies within the 1995–2009 time range. Studies were screened and sorted. Pertinent studies were rated for methodologic quality and for risk of bias. Following assessment of methodologic quality and bias risk, the level of evidence and a grade of recommendation was determined for each of three categories: Safety, energy efficiency, and cost effectiveness. A total of 18 articles were determined to be pertinent: seven for safety, eight for energy efficiency, and three for cost effectiveness. Methodologic quality was low with a moderate risk of bias in the safety and energy effectiveness categories. Studies in cost effectiveness received high scores for methodologic quality. Though methodologic quality varied across the selected topics, there was sufficient evidence to suggest increased efficacy of the C-Leg in the areas of safety, energy efficiency and cost when compared with other prosthetic knees for transfemoral amputees.

[1]  N. Ordway,et al.  Comparison Between the 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 , 2007, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[2]  J. Sallis.  Measuring Physical Activity and Energy Expenditure , 1996 .

[3]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[4]  Case Report: Using the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale to Quantify the Impact of Prosthetic Knee Choice on Balance Confidence , 2007 .

[5]  T. Schmalz,et al.  Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: the influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components. , 2002, Gait & posture.

[6]  W. Miller,et al.  The prevalence and risk factors of falling and fear of falling among lower extremity amputees. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[7]  F. Hutchinson,et al.  Prosthetic usage following major lower extremity amputation. , 1989, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[8]  Mark Speechley,et al.  Balance confidence among people with lower-limb amputations. , 2002, Physical therapy.

[9]  J. Czerniecki,et al.  Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees. , 2006, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[10]  Kenton R Kaufman,et al.  Energy expenditure and activity of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. , 2008, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[11]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[12]  L. M. Sheldahl,et al.  Physiological comparison of walking among bilateral above-knee amputee and able-bodied subjects, and a model to account for the differences in metabolic cost. , 1997, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[13]  Michael S Orendurff,et al.  Gait efficiency using the C-Leg. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[14]  John Whyte,et al.  Applying Evidence Standards to Rehabilitation Research , 2006, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[15]  Brian J Hafner,et al.  Differences in function and safety between Medicare Functional Classification Level-2 and -3 transfemoral amputees and influence of prosthetic knee joint control. , 2009, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[16]  E. Mackenzie,et al.  Racial differences in the incidence of limb loss secondary to peripheral vascular disease: a population-based study. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[17]  H. Herr,et al.  A Clinical Comparison of Variable-Damping and Mechanically Passive Prosthetic Knee Devices , 2005, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[18]  J S Smith,et al.  Free-living energy expenditure of adult men assessed by continuous heart-rate monitoring and doubly-labelled water , 1997, British Journal of Nutrition.

[19]  T. Chin,et al.  Comparison of Different Microprocessor Controlled Knee Joints on the Energy Consumption during Walking in Trans-Femoral Amputees: Intelligent Knee Prosthesis (IP) Versus C-Leg , 2006, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[20]  H. Seelen,et al.  Costs and consequences of a prosthesis with an electronically stance and swing phase controlled knee joint , 2009 .

[21]  Decreased Heart Rate in a Geriatric Client After Physical Therapy Intervention and Accommodation With the C-Leg , 2009 .

[22]  M. Swiontkowski,et al.  Evaluation of Function, Performance, and Preference as Transfemoral Amputees Transition From Mechanical to Microprocessor Control of the Prosthetic Knee , 2008 .

[23]  Wim H. M. Saris,et al.  Measuring Physical Activity and Energy Expenditure , 1996 .

[24]  V. Preedy,et al.  Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network , 2010 .

[25]  A. Torbica,et al.  Cost utility analysis of knee prosthesis with complete microprocessor control (C-leg) compared with mechanical technology in trans-femoral amputees , 2009, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[26]  M. Tinetti,et al.  Fear of falling and fall-related efficacy in relationship to functioning among community-living elders. , 1994, Journal of gerontology.

[27]  W. Miller,et al.  The influence of falling, fear of falling, and balance confidence on prosthetic mobility and social activity among individuals with a lower extremity amputation. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[28]  Kinley Larntz,et al.  Perceived Stability, Function, and Satisfaction Among Transfemoral Amputees Using Microprocessor and Nonmicroprocessor Controlled Prosthetic Knees: A Multicenter Survey , 2009 .

[29]  J. Whyte.  Clinical Trials in Rehabilitation: What Are the Obstacles? , 2003, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[30]  A Gitter,et al.  A reassessment of center-of-mass dynamics as a determinate of the metabolic inefficiency of above-knee amputee ambulation. , 1995, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[31]  E. Mackenzie,et al.  Limb Amputation and Limb Deficiency: Epidemiology and Recent Trends in the United States , 2002, Southern medical journal.

[32]  K R Kaufman,et al.  Gait and balance of transfemoral amputees using passive mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. , 2007, Gait & posture.

[33]  Martin Henriksson,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of C-leg compared with non-microprocessor-controlled knees: a modeling approach. , 2008, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[34]  J. Perry,et al.  Energy expenditure and gait characteristics of a bilateral amputee walking with C-leg prostheses compared with stubby and conventional articulating prostheses. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[35]  Thomas Schmalz,et al.  The Safety of C-Leg: Biomechanical Tests , 2009 .

[36]  Catherine Sherrington,et al.  Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. , 2003, Physical therapy.

[37]  M Jason Highsmith,et al.  Comparison of nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[38]  Sean D Sullivan,et al.  Development and Validation of a Grading System for the Quality of Cost-Effectiveness Studies , 2003, Medical care.