The Safety of C-Leg: Biomechanical Tests

Safe knee function under all real-world conditions is a crucial factor in the prescription of specific prosthetic knee mechanisms. Although many amputees have reported the subjective belief that the electronic C-Leg combines increased function while walking with increased safety, till date there has been little objective evidence to support this claim. This study was designed to identify biomechanical differences that would permit objective evaluation of the relative safety in critical situations of different prosthetic knee joint designs. In the gait laboratory, three experienced amputees wearing a safety harness were tested under conditions that simulated five common real-world situations: walking on even ground, abruptly stopping, abruptly sidestepping, inadvertently stepping onto an object, and tripping when the knee is extending during swing phase. Kinematics and kinetics of three knee joints—the 3C1 (Mauch SNS hydraulic system), 3R80 (rotary hydraulic system), and C-Leg (electronically controlled hydraulic system)—were measured using accepted gait analysis technology (Kistler force plates, VICON system). This study protocol proved to be suitable for defining the potential safety of tested knee joints. The results from instrumented gait analysis were shown to provide an objective reason for knee stability or instability for each individual trial, including the reason for knee collapse. The amputee subjects confirmed that the gait disruption occurring under the tested conditions corresponded closely to critical everyday situations that may lead to fall. Tripping with 3R80 and stepping onto an object with 3C1 results in a significant risk of falling. Because of its biomechanical performance under high-risk conditions, C-Leg seems to be the most suitable design to prevent falls with the prosthesis.

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

[2]  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.

[3]  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.

[4]  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.

[5]  James W. Breakey,et al.  The Impact of C-Leg® on the Physical and Psychological Adjustment to Transfemoral Amputation , 2007 .

[6]  B. Drerup,et al.  Einfluss des C-Leg-Kniegelenk-Passteiles der Fa. Otto Bock auf die Versorgungsqualität Oberschenkelamputierter , 2005, Der Orthopäde.

[7]  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.

[8]  S Blumentritt A new biomechanical method for determination of static prosthetic alignment , 1997, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[9]  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.

[10]  K. Seide,et al.  Amputationen und Prothesenversorgung der unteren Extremitäten , 2006, Trauma und Berufskrankheit.

[11]  Gentner Verlag Stuttgart,et al.  "Was kann das C-Leg?" - Ganganalytischer Vergleich von C-Leg, 3R45 und 3R80 , 1999 .

[12]  M. Nietert,et al.  Das Kniegelenk des Menschen als biomechanisches Problem - The human knee-joint as a biomechanical problem , 1977 .

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

[14]  C W Radcliffe Four-bar linkage prosthetic knee mechanisms: Kinematics, alignment and prescription criteria , 1994, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[15]  H. Stinus,et al.  Biomechanik und Beurteilung des mikroprozessorgesteuerten Exoprothesenkniegelenkes C-Leg , 2000 .

[16]  B. Hafner,et al.  Measurement of Knee Center Alignment Trends in a National Sample of Established Users of the Otto Bock C-Leg Microprocessor-Controlled Knee Unit , 2004 .

[17]  Thomas Schmalz,et al.  Biomechanical analysis of stair ambulation in lower limb amputees. , 2007, Gait & posture.

[18]  Katheryn J Allyn,et al.  Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee. , 2007, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.