Comparative biomechanical analysis of current microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints.

OBJECTIVE To investigate and identify functional differences of 4 microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints (C-Leg, Hybrid Knee [also called Energy Knee], Rheo Knee, Adaptive 2). DESIGN Tested situations were walking on level ground, on stairs and ramps; additionally, the fall prevention potentials for each design were examined. The measuring technology used included an optoelectronic camera system combined with 2 forceplates as well as a mobile spiroergometric system. SETTING The study was conducted in a gait laboratory. PARTICIPANTS Subjects with unilateral transfemoral amputations (N=9; mobility grade, 3-4; age, 22-49y) were tested. INTERVENTIONS Participants were fitted and tested with 4 different microprocessor-controlled knee joints. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Static prosthetic alignment, time distance parameters, kinematic and kinetic data and metabolic energy consumption. RESULTS Compared with the Hybrid Knee and the Adaptive 2, the C-Leg offers clear advantages in the provision of adequate swing phase flexion resistances and terminal extension damping during level walking at various speeds, especially at higher walking speeds. The Rheo Knee provides sufficient terminal extension; however, swing phase flexion resistances seem to be too low. The values for metabolic energy consumption show only slight differences during level walking. The joint resistances generated for descending stairs and ramps relieve the contralateral side to varying degrees. When walking on stairs, safety-relevant technical differences between the investigated joint types can be observed. Designs with adequate internal resistances offer stability advantages when the foot is positioned on the step. Stumble recovery tests reveal that the different knee joint designs vary in their effectiveness in preventing the patient from falling. CONCLUSIONS The patient benefits provided by the investigated electronic prosthetic knee joints differ considerably. The C-Leg appears to offer the amputee greater functional and safety-related advantages than the other tested knee joints. Reduced loading of the contralateral side has been demonstrated during ramp and stair descent. Metabolic energy consumption does not vary significantly between the tested knees. Hence, this parameter seems not to be a suitable criterion for assessing microprocessor-controlled knee components.

[1]  B Drerup,et al.  [The influence of the C-leg knee-shin system from the Otto Bock Company in the care of above-knee amputees. A clinical-biomechanical study to define indications]. , 2005, Der Orthopade.

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

[3]  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.

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

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

[6]  M. B. Taylor,et al.  A comparison of energy expenditure by a high level trans-femoral amputee using the Intelligent Prosthesis and conventionally damped prosthetic limbs , 1996, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[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]  Hugh Herr,et al.  User-adaptive control of a magnetorheological prosthetic knee , 2003, Ind. Robot.

[9]  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.

[10]  Saeed Zahedi,et al.  Adaptive prosthesis – a new concept in prosthetic knee control , 2005, Robotica.

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

[12]  Kenton R. Kaufman,et al.  Do microprocessor-controlled knees work better? , 2006 .

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

[14]  W D Spence,et al.  Energy cost of walking: comparison of "intelligent prosthesis" with conventional mechanism. , 1997, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

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

[16]  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.

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

[19]  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.

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