About Otto Bock Products Fabrication Services Education Consumer Consumer
Home > Products > Lower Limb Prosthetics > Microprocessor Controlled Prosthetic Knees Research

Microprocessor Controlled Prosthetic Knees - Published Peer Reviewed Clinical Research


Bibliography

C-Leg® versus Non-Microprocessor Controlled Knees

  1. Kaufman KR, Levine JA, Brey RH, McCrady SK, Padgett DJ, Joyner MJ:  Energy Expenditure and Activity Level of Transfemoral Amputees using Passive Mechanical and Microprocessor-controlled Prosthetic Knees.  Accepted: Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2008.
  2. Gerzeli S, Torbica A, Fattore G:  Cost utility analysis of knee prosthesis with complete microprocessor control (C-leg) compared with mechanical technology in trans-femoral amputees.  European Journal of Health Economics, 2008; (e-publication ahead of print).

  3. Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ, Hubbard SL:  Comparison of Non-microprocessor Knee Mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, Stumbles, Falls, Walking Tests, Stair Descent, and Knee Preference; Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development; 2008; 45 (1): 1-14.

  4. Brodkorb TH, Henniksson M, Johanneson-Munk K, Thidell F:  Cost-effectiveness of C-leg compared with non-microprocessor-controlled knees: a modeling approach.  Archives Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; 2008 89(1): 24-30.

  5. Kaufman KR, Levine JA, Brey RH, et al.  Gait and Balance of transfemoral amputees using passive mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees.  Gait and Posture.  2007; 26: 489-493

  6. Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Marx B:  Biomechanical Analysis of Stair Ambulation in Lower Limb Amputees.  Gait and Posture.  2007; 25: 267-278.

  7. Seymour R, Engbretson B, Kott K, Ordway N, Brooks G, Crannell J, Hickernell E, Wheller K:  Comparison between the C-leg(R) microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee and non-microprocessor control prosthetic knees: A preliminary study of energy expenditure, obstacle course performance, and quality of life survey.  Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2007; 31(1): 51 – 61.

  8. Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG:  Evaluation of Function, Performance, and Preference as Transfemoral Amputees Transition from Mechanical to Microprocessor Control of the Prosthetic Knee.  Archives Physical Medicine Rehabilitation.  2007; 88(2): 207-17. Abstract

  9. Bunce DJ, Breakey JW: The Impact of C-Leg on the Physical and Psychological Adjustment to Transfemoral Amputation.  Journal of Prosthetics & Orthotics.   2007; 19(1): 7-14.

  10. Kaufman KR, B Iverson, D Padgett, RH Brey, JA Levine, MJ Joyner.  Do microprocessor-controlled knees work better?  Journal Biomechanics.  2006; 39: S70.

  11. Segal AD, Orendurff MS, Klute GK, McDowell ML, Pecoraro JA, Shofer J, Czerniecki JM: Kinematic and Kinetic Comparisons of Transfemoral Amputee Gait using C-Leg and Mauch SNS Prosthetic Knees.  Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development.   2006; 43(7): 857-870.

  12. Klute GK, et al:  Prosthetic Intervention Effects on Activity of Lower Extremity Amputees.  Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.  2006; 87: 717-722. Abstract

  13. Williams RM et al:  Does Having a Computerized Prosthetic Knee Influence Cognitive Performance during Amputee Walking?  Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.  2006; 87: 989-994. Abstract

  14. Orendurff MS et al:  Gait Efficiency Using the C-Leg.  Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development.  2006; 43(2):239-246. Abstract

  15. Wetz HH, Hafkemeyer U, Drerup B:  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.  Orthopade.  2005; 34(4):298, 300-314, 316-319.

  16. Perry J, et al: Energy Expenditure and Gait Characteristics of a Bilateral Amputee Walking with C-Leg Prostheses Compared with Stubby and Conventional Articulating Prostheses.  Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.  2004; 85: 1711-1717. Abstract

  17. Schmalz T, et al:  Energy Expenditure and Biomechanical Characteristics of Lower Limb Amputee Gait:  Influence of Prosthetic Alignment and Different Prosthetic Components.  Gait and Posture.  2003; 16: 255-263.

  18. Stinus H:  Biomechanics and Evaluation of the Microprocessor-Controlled C-Leg Exoprosthesis Knee Joint.  Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb, 2000; 138(2): 278-282. Abstract



    Other Microprocessor Controlled Knees versus Non-Microprocessor Controlled Knees
  19. Jepson F, Datta D, Harris I, Heller B, Howitt J, McLean J:  A comparative evaluation of the Adaptive knee and Catech knee joints: a preliminary study.   Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2008; 32(1): 84-92.

  20. Chin T, et al:  Comparison of Different Microprocessor Controlled Knee Joints on the Energy Consumption during Walking in Transfemoral Amputees: Intelligent Knee Prosthesis (IP) versus C-Leg.  Prosthetics and Orthotics International.   2006 30(1): 73-80. Abstract

  21. Chin T, et al: Energy Expenditure during Walking in Amputees after Disarticulation of the Hip.  Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British.  2005; 87(1):117-119.

  22. Datta D, et al: A Comparative Evaluation of Oxygen Consumption and Gait Pattern in Amputees Using Intelligent Prostheses and Conventionally Damped Knee Swing-Phase Control.  Clinical Rehabilitation.   2005; 19: 398-403. Abstract

  23. Chin T, et al: Effect of Intelligent Prosthesis on the Walking Ability of Young Transfemoral Amputees: Comparison of IP Users with Able-bodies People.  American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.  2003; 82(6): 447-451.

  24. Heller BW: A Pilot Study Comparing the Cognitive Demand of Walking for Transfemoral Amputees Using the Intelligent Prosthesis with that Using Conventionally Damping Knees.  Clinical Rehabilitation.  2000; 14: 518-522.

  25. Chin T, et al:  The Efficacy of Physiological Cost Index Measurement of a Subject Walking with an Intelligent Prosthesis.  Prosthetics and Orthotics International.  1999; 23(1):45-49.

  26. Datta D, et al:  Conventional Versus Microchip Controlled Pneumatic Swing Phase Control for Trans-Femoral Amputees: User’s Verdict.  Prosthetics and Orthotics International.  1998; 22(2): 129-135.

  27. Buckley JG, et al:  Energy Cost of Walking: Comparison of Intelligent Prosthesis with Conventional Mechanism.  Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.  1997; 78: 330-333

  28. Taylor MB, et al:  A Comparison of Energy Expenditure by a High Level Trans-Femoral Amputee Using the Intelligent Prosthesis and Conventionally Damped Prosthetic Limbs.   Prosthetics and Orthotics International.  1996; 20(2): 116-121.

  29. Johansson JL et al:  A Clinical Comparison of Variable Damping and Mechanical Passive Prosthetic Knee Devices.  American Journal of Phys Medicine and Rehabilitation.  2005; 84: 563-575. Abstract

  30. Herr H, et al: User-Adaptive Control of a Magnetorheological Prosthetic Knee.  Industrial Robot.  2003; 1: 42-55.



    Review Publications

  31. Fergason J:  Clinical Application of Advanced Prosthetic Technology: An Update.  Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care.  2007; 62: S6.

  32. Berry D:  Microprocessor Prosthetic Knees.  Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America.   2006; 17: 91-113. Abstract

  33. Collins DM et al: Review of Research on Prosthetic Devices for Lower Limb Extremity Amputation. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.  2006; 34(5): 379-438.

  34. Schaffer HM:  Advances in Prosthetic Technology Provide More Options to Amputees.  Lippincott’s Case Management.  2006; 11(5): 282-283.

  35. Flood KM et al:  Limb Deficiency and Prosthetic Management.  2. Aging with Limb Loss.  Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.  2006; 87: S10-S14.

  36. Esquenazi A:  Amputation Rehabilitation and Prosthetic Restoration.  From Surgery to Community Reintegration.  Disability and Rehabilitation.  2004; 26(14/15): 831-836.

  37. Michael JW:  Modern Prosthetic Knee Mechanisms.  Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research.  1999; 361: 39-47.

 

Home > Products > Lower Limb Prosthetics > Microprocessor Controlled Prosthetic Knees Research