Differences in knee flexion between the Genium and C-Leg microprocessor knees while walking on level ground and ramps.

BACKGROUND Microprocessor knees have improved the gait and functional abilities of persons with transfemoral amputation. The Genium prosthetic knee offers an advanced sensor and control system designed to decrease impairment by: allowing greater stance phase flexion, easing transitions between gait phases, and compensating for changes in terrain. The aim of this study was to determine differences between the knee flexion angle of persons using the Genium knee, the C-Leg knee, and non-amputee controls; and to evaluate the impact the prostheses on gait and level of impairment of the user. METHODS This study used a randomized experimental crossover of persons with transfemoral amputation using the Genium and C-Leg microprocessor knees (n=25), with an observational sample of non-amputee controls (n=5). Gait analysis by 3D motion tracking of subjects ambulating at different speeds on level ground and on 5° and 10° ramps was completed. FINDINGS Use of the Genium resulted in a significant increase in peak knee flexion for swing (5°, p<0.01, d=0.34) and stance (2°, p<0.01, d=0.19) phases relative to C-Leg use. There was a high degree of variability between subjects, and significant differences still remain between the Genium group and the control group's knee flexion angles for most speeds and slopes. INTERPRETATION The Genium knee generally increases flexion in swing and stance, potentially decreasing the level of impairment for persons with transfemoral amputation. This study demonstrates functional differences between the C-Leg and Genium knees to help prosthetists determine if the Genium will provide functional benefits to individual patients.

[1]  Sam L. Phillips,et al.  Differences in the Spatiotemporal Parameters of Transtibial and Transfemoral Amputee Gait , 2010 .

[2]  Jason T. Kahle,et al.  STAIR ASCENT AND RAMP GAIT TRAINING WITH THE GENIUM KNEE , 2014 .

[3]  M. J. Highsmith,et al.  A Method for Training Step-Over-Step Stair Descent Gait With Stance Yielding Prosthetic Knees: A Technical Note , 2012 .

[4]  Ciara M O'Connor,et al.  Automatic detection of gait events using kinematic data. , 2007, Gait & posture.

[5]  Geert Molenberghs,et al.  Last Observation Carried Forward: A Crystal Ball? , 2009, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[6]  Bryan Buchholz,et al.  ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. , 2005, Journal of biomechanics.

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

[8]  P R Cavanagh,et al.  Accuracy of the functional method of hip joint center location: effects of limited motion and varied implementation. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[9]  H. Seelen,et al.  Measures and procedures utilized to determine the added value of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints: a systematic review , 2013, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

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

[11]  Jason T. Kahle,et al.  Ramp descent performance with the C-Leg and interrater reliability of the Hill Assessment Index , 2013, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[12]  J. Czerniecki,et al.  Kinematic and kinetic comparisons of transfemoral amputee gait using C-Leg and Mauch SNS prosthetic knees. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[13]  Malte Bellmann,et al.  Immediate effects of a new microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joint: a comparative biomechanical evaluation. , 2012, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[14]  Susan J Hillman,et al.  Repeatability of a new observational gait score for unilateral lower limb amputees. , 2010, Gait & posture.

[15]  Malte Bellmann,et al.  Comparative biomechanical analysis of current microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints. , 2010, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[16]  Patricia Goodson,et al.  Out of sight, not out of mind: strategies for handling missing data. , 2008, American journal of health behavior.

[17]  U.D. Croce,et al.  Surface-marker cluster design criteria for 3-D bone movement reconstruction , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[18]  Hartmut Witte,et al.  ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--part I: ankle, hip, and spine. International Society of Biomechanics. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[19]  B. Hafner,et al.  Outcomes associated with the use of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees among individuals with unilateral transfemoral limb loss: a systematic review. , 2013, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[20]  Denny J. Padgett,et al.  Gait and balance of transfemoral amputees using passive mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. , 2007, Gait & posture.