Clinical Studies

Find lists of Clinical Studies related to Ottobock Products; including Clinical Research Summaries, Bibliographies, and links to Published Research.

Kevin on his C-Leg prosthetic leg.

The truth about microprocessor knees

To help make the best clinical choice, a new study compares the differences between microprocessor knees.

The present study found clear differences in the functional features of stance control as well as swing phase control among the four MPKs investigated.


>>>Download the summary here


The product/device “Supplier” (defined as an O&P practitioner, O&P patient care facility, or DME Supplier) assumes full responsibility for accurate billing of Ottobock products. It is the Supplier’s responsibility to determine medical necessity; ensure coverage criteria is met; and submit appropriate HCPCS codes, modifiers, and charges for services/products delivered. It is also recommended that Supplier’s contact insurance payer(s) for coding and coverage guidance prior to submitting claims. Ottobock Coding Suggestions and Reimbursement Guides are based on reasonable judgment and are not recommended to replace the Supplier’s judgment. These recommendations may be subject to revision based on additional information or alpha-numeric system changes.

Lower Limb Prosthetics Clinical Studies

C-Leg / Compact Microprocessor-Controlled Prosthetic Knees


Summary of the study: "Designs and Performance of Microprocessor-Controlled Knee Joints"

Download (PDF | 555.5 KB)

See for yourself: C-Leg has been the subject of more peer-reviewed, published clinical studies than any other microprocessor knee in history. View the eye-opening comparison.

Download (PDF | 62.7 KB)

C-Leg®: Proven Safety, Energy Efficiency, and Cost Efficacy View a summary of a recent clinical research review, demonstrating the C-Leg’s advantages over other knees.

Download (PDF | 124.2 KB)

C-Leg and Compact Clinical Studies Bibliography:
View a complete list of clinical studies for C-Leg and Compact

Download (PDF | 86.6 KB)

C-Leg and Compact Studies Available for Download from the Publisher

1. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Shepard NT, Kaufman KR. The effect of the C-leg knee prosthesis on sensory dependency and falls during sensory organization testing. Technol Innov. 2014;15:343-347.

2. Thiele J, Westebbe B, Bellmann M, Kraft M. Designs and Performance of Microprocessor-Controlled Knee Joints. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2014;59(1):65-77. doi:10.1515/bmt-2013-0069.

3. Eberly VJ. Mulroy SJ, Gronley JK, Perry J, Burnfield JM. Impact of a stance phase microprocessor-controlled knee prosthesis on level walking in lower functioning individuals with transfemoral amputation. POI. 2013;Oct 17 [epub ahead of print].

4. William D, Beasley E, Shaw A. Investigation of the quality of life of persons with a transfemoral amputation who use a C-leg® prosthetic device. JPO. 2013;25(3):100-109.

5. Tofts LJ, Hamblin N. C-Leg improves function and quality of life in an adolescent traumatic transfemoral amputee – a case study. POI. 2013; Sep 20 [epub ahead of print].

6. Wolf EJ, Everding VQ, Linberg AA, Czerniecki JM, Gambel CJ. Comparison of the Power Knee and C-Leg during step-up and sit-to-stand tasks. Gait Posture. 2013 Jan 30 [Epub ahead of print].

7. Wolf EJ, Everding VQ, Linberg AA, Schnall BL, Czerniecki JM, Gambel, JM. Assessment of transfemoral amputees using C-Leg and Power Knee for ascending and descending inclines and steps. JRRD. 2012;49(6):831-842.

8. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Miro RM, Mengelkoch, MJ. Ramp descent performance with the C-leg and interrater reliability of the Hill Assessment Index. POI. 2013;37(5):362-368.

9. Wong CK, Benoy S, Blackwell W, Jones S, Rahal R. A comparison of energy expenditure in people with transfemoral amputation using microprocessor and nonmicroprocessor knee prostheses: a systematic review. JPO. 2012;24(4):202-208.

10. Kaufman KR, Frittoli S, Frigo CA. Gait asymmetry of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Clin Biomech. 2012;27(5):460-465.

11. Bar JB, Wutzke CJ, Threlkeld AJ. Longitudinal gait analysis of a person with a transfemoral amputation using three different prosthetic knee/foot pairs. PhysiotherTheor Pract 2012;28(5):407-411.

12. Wong CK, Wilska J, Stern M. Balance, balance confidence, and falls using nonmicroprocessor and microprocessor knee prostheses: a case study after vascular amputation with 12-month follow-up. JPO. 2012;24(1):16-18.

13. Theeven P, Hemmen B, Geers R, Smeets R, Brink P, Seelen H. Influence of Advanced Prosthetic Knee Joints on Perceived Performance and Everyday Life Activity Level of Low-Functional Persons with a transfemoral Amputation or Knee Disarticulation. J Rehab Med, 2012; 44:454-461.

14. Burnfield JM, Eberly VJ. Gronely JAK, Perry J, Yule WJ, Mulroy SJ. Impact of Stance Phase Microprocessor Controlled Knee Prosthesis on Ramp Negotiation and Community Walking Function in K2 Level Transfemoral Amputees. POI. 2012;36(1):95-104. Epub 2012 Jan 5.

15. Theeven P, Hemmen B, Seelen H. Functional Added Value of Microprocessor-Controlled Prosthetic Knee Joints in Daily Life Performance of Medicare Functional Classification Level-2 Amputees. JRRD. 2011;43:906-915.

16. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Carey SL, Lura DJ, Dubey RV, Csavina KR, Quillen WS. Kinetic asymmetry in transfemoral amputees while performing sit to stand and stand to sit movements. Gait Posture 2011;34(1):86-91.

17. Mâaref K, Martinet N, Grumillier C, Ghannouchi S, André JM, Paysant J. Kinematics in the Terminal Swing Phase of Unilateral Transfemoral Amputees: Microprocessor-Controlled Versus Swing-Phase Control Prosthetic Knees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(6): 919-925.

18. Theeven P, Hemmen B, Stevens C, Ilmer E, Brink P, Seelen H. Feasibility of a New Concept for Measuring ACTUAL Functional Performance in Daily Life of Transfemoral Amputees. J Rehab Med. 2010; 42: 744–751.

19. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT: Safety, Energy Efficiency, and Cost Efficacy of the C-Leg for Transfemoral Amputees: A Review of the Literature. POI. 2010; e-pub, 1–16.

20. Bellmann M, Schmalz T, Blumentritt S: Comparative Biomechanical Analysis of Current Microprocessor-Controlled Prosthetic Knee Joints. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(4):644-52.

21. Blumentritt S, Schmalz T, Jarasch R: Safety of C-Leg: Biomechanical Tests. JPO. 2009;21(1): 2-17.

22. Hafner BJ, Smith DG: Differences in Function and Safety between Medicare Functional Classification Level-2 and -3 Transfemoral Amputees and Influence of Prosthetic Knee Joint Control. JRRD. 2009;46(3):417-434.

23. Seelen HAM, Hemmen B, Schmeets AJ, Ament AJHA, Evers SMAA: Costs and Consequences of a Prosthesis with an Electronically Stance and Swing Phase Controlled Knee Joint. Technology and Disability, 2009; 21: 25–34.

24. Berry D, Olson MD, Larntz K: Perceived Stability, Function and Satisfaction among Transfemoral Amputees using Microprocessor and Non-microprocessor Controlled Prosthetic Knees: A Multicenter Study. JPO. 2009; 21(1):32-42.,_Function,_and_Satisfaction.5.aspx

25. 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. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(7):1380-1385.

26. 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, 2009;10:47-59.

27. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Fox JL, Shaw KL: Decreased Heart Rate in a Geriatric Client after Physical Therapy Intervention and Accommodation with the C-Leg. JPO. 2009;21(1) 43-47.

28. Brodtkorb TH, Henniksson M, Johanneson-Munk K, Thidell F: Cost-effectiveness Of CLeg Compared with Non-microprocessor Controlled Knees: A Modeling Approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(1):24-30.

29. 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. JRRD. 2008;45(1):1-14.

30. 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. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(2):207-17.

31. Kaufman KR, Levine JA, Brey RH, et al. Gait and Balance of Transfemoral Amputees using Passive Mechanical and Microprocessor-Controlled Prosthetic Knees. Gait Posture. 2007;26:489-493.

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

33. Seymour R, Engbretson B, Kott K, Ordway N, Brooks G, Crannell J, Hickernell E, Wheller K: 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. POI. 2007;31(1):51–61.

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

35. Chin T, Machida K, Sawamura S, Shiba R, Oyabu H, Nagakura Y, Takase I. Comparison of Different Microprocessor Controlled Knee Joints on the Energy Consumption during Walking in Transfemoral Amputees: Intelligent Knee Prosthesis (IP) versus C-Leg. POI. 2006;30(1):73-80.

36. 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. JRRD. 2006;43(7):857-870.

37. Orendurff MS, Segal AD, Klute GK, McDowell ML, Pecoraro JA, Czerniecki MD. Gait Efficiency Using the C-Leg. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;43(2):239-246.

38. Johansson JL, Sherrill DM, Riley PO, Bonato P, Herr H. A clinical comparison of variable-damping and mechanically passive prosthetic knee devices. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:563–575.

39. Swanson E, Stube J, Edman P. Function and body image levels in individuals with transfemoral amputation using the C-leg. JPO. 2005;17(3):80-84.

40. Perry J, Burnfield JM, Newsam CJ, Conley P. Energy Expenditure and Gait Characteristics of a Bilateral Amputee Walking with C-Leg Prostheses Compared with Stubby and Conventional Articulating Prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:1711-1717.

41. Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Jarasch R. Energy Expenditure and Biomechanical Characteristics of Lower Limb Amputee Gait. Influence of Prosthetic Alignment and Different Prosthetic Components. Gait Posture. 2002;16:255-263.

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

Advanced Orthotics Clinical Studies

Breaking News!

Advanced Reimbursement services.
Ottobock now offers Advanced Reimbursement Assistance for Ottobock Products.
Advanced Reimbursement services.
Quality for life