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.

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

>>>Read the study here


 

>>>Download the summary here

Lower Limb Prosthetics Clinical Studies

C-Leg / Compact Microprocessor-Controlled Prosthetic Knees

TITLE / DESCRIPTION Last update Downloads

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
 

02.14.2014

Download (PDF | 92.6 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. https://www.cognizantcommunication.com/component/content/article/708

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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24176961

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]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24135259

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. http://journals.lww.com/jpojournal/Abstract/2013/07000/Investigation_of_the_Quality_of_Life_of_Persons.2.aspx

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]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24058048

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]. http://www.gaitposture.com/article/S0966-6362(13)00009-X/abstract.

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. http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/2012/496/wolf496.html

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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23327837

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. http://journals.lww.com/jpojournal/Abstract/2012/10000/A_Comparison_of_Energy_Expenditure_in_People_With.6.aspx

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. http://www.clinbiomech.com/article/S0268-0033(11)00299-3/abstract

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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22191438

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. http://www.oandp.org/jpo/library/2012_01_016.asp

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. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mjl/sreh/2012/00000044/00000005/art00011

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. http://poi.sagepub.com/content/36/1/95.short

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. http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/09/46/3/pdf/Hafner.pdf

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. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966636211000956

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. http://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(10)00127-9/abstract

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. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mjl/sreh/2010/00000042/00000008/art00007

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. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/03093646.2010.520054

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. http://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(10)00008-0/abstract

21. Blumentritt S, Schmalz T, Jarasch R: Safety of C-Leg: Biomechanical Tests. JPO. 2009;21(1): 2-17.http://journals.lww.com/jpojournal/Fulltext/2009/01000/The_Safety_of_C_Leg__Biomechanical_Tests.2.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

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. http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/09/46/3/pdf/Hafner.pdf

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. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/92862r25xm6817gx/

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. http://journals.lww.com/jpojournal/Abstract/2009/01000/Perceived_Stability,_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. http://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(08)00278-5/abstract

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. http://www.springerlink.com/content/qqrr5v3814234637/

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. http://journals.lww.com/jpojournal/Fulltext/2009/01000/Decreased_Heart_Rate_in_a_Geriatric_Client_After.6.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

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. http://www.archivespmr.org/article/S0003-9993(07)01596-1/abstract

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. http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/08/45/1/pdf/ataglance.pdf

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. http://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(06)01480-8/abstract

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. http://www.gaitposture.com/article/S0966-6362(07)00185-3/abstract

32. Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Marx B: Biomechanical Analysis of Stair Ambulation in Lower Limb Amputees. Gait Posture. 2007;25:267-278. http://www.gaitposture.com/article/S0966-6362(06)00053-1/abstract

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. http://poi.sagepub.com/content/31/1/51.short

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. http://journals.lww.com/jpojournal/Abstract/2007/01000/The_Impact_of_C_Leg_R__on_the_Physical_and.5.aspx

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. http://poi.sagepub.com/content/30/1/73.short

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. http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/06/43/7/pdf/Segal.pdf

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. http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/06/43/2/pdf/orendurff.pdf

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. http://journals.lww.com/ajpmr/Abstract/2005/08000/A_Clinical_Comparison_of_Variable_Damping_and.1.aspx

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. http://www.oandp.org/jpo/library/2005_03_080.asp

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. http://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(04)00398-3/abstract

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. http://www.gaitposture.com/article/S0966-6362(02)00008-5/abstract

42. Stinus H. Biomechanics and Evaluation of the Microprocessor-Controlled C-Leg Exoprosthesis Knee Joint. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2000;138(2):278-282. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10929622

Advanced Orthotics Clinical Studies


Breaking News!

Advanced Reimbursement services.
Ottobock now offers Advanced Reimbursement Assistance for Ottobock Products.
Advanced Reimbursement services.
more

Sign up here

Quality for life