Skip to content Skip to navigation menu
  1. Home
  2. Clinical Studies

Clinical evidence that's more than just a tagline.

You can view the results of extensive clinical studies on our corporate site by clicking here.

Evidence Essentials: C-Leg MPK

  Mobility need or deficit of the patient Evidence for benefits of the C-Leg vs. NMPK
Safety Patient stumbles and/or falls repeatedly

Patient avoids activities due to fear of falling

Patient sustained fall-related injuries

Significant reduction in falls of up to 80%
(Hafner et al., 2007 and 2009; Highsmith et al., 2010; Kahle et al., 2008; Kannenberg et al., 2014, Kaufman et al., 2018)

Significant reduction in stumbles of up to 57%
(Hafner et al., 2009; Highsmith et al., 2010; Kahle et al., 2008; Kannenberg et al., 2014)

Significant improvements in balance and indicators for the risk of falling, such as Timed-up-and-go-test, forced gait perturbations in the gait lab, ABC scale, etc.
(Blumentritt et al., 2009; Burnfield et al., 2012; Hafner et al., 2007 and 2009; Kannenberg et al., 2014; Kaufman et al., 2007; Lansade et al., 2018)
Mobility Patient has difficulty negotiating slopes/hills Significant improvement in quality of slope/hill descent towards natural, reciprocal (step-over-step) gait pattern
(Hafner et al.; 2007 and 2009; Highsmith et al., 2013; Kannenberg et al., 2014)

Significant increase in downhill walking speed of up to 40%
(Burnfield et al., 2012; Hafner et al., 2007 and 2009; Highsmith et al, 2013; Kannenberg et al., 2014)
Mobility Patient has difficulty negotiating uneven terrain and obstacles Significant increase in walking speed on uneven terrain and obstacle courses of up to 21%
(Kahle et al., 2008; Seymour et al., 2007)
Mobility Patient has difficulty descending stairs with reciprocal (step-over-step) gait Significant improvement in quality of stair descent towards natural, reciprocal (step-over-step) gait pattern
(Hafner et al., 2007 and 2009; Kahle et al., 2008; Kannenberg et al., 2014; Schmalz et al., 2007)
Mobility Patient has difficulty with dual tasking while walking with the prosthesis Significant reduction in cognitive demand while walking with the prosthesis
(Hafner et al., 2007 and 2009; Seymour et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2006)

Significantly reduction in cortical brain activity and perfusion during dual-tasking
(Möller et al., 2019; Ramstrand et al, 2020)

Significantly improved capacity and performance in executing a concurrent task while walking with the prosthesis
(Hafner et al., 2007 and 2009; Morgan et al., 2015; Seymour et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2006)
Mobility Patient is limited in his/her mobility About 50% of K2 patients are able to improve their overall mobility level to K3
(Hafner et al. 2009; Kahle et al., 2008; Kannenberg et al., 2014)
Musculo-skeletal pain Patient suffers from joint and back pain due to gait asymmetry and excessive loading Significant improvement in gait symmetry and, thus, loading of the locomotor system
(Kaufman et al, 2007 and 2012; Segal 2006)

Significant stance knee flexion that results in shock absorption to unload proximal joints and the spine
(Kaufman et al., 2007; Segal et al., 2006)

 

 

 

Evidence Essentials: Kenevo MPK for K2

  Mobility need or deficit of the patient Evidence for benefits of the Kenevo vs. NMPK in K2 patients
Safety Patient stumbles and/or falls repeatedly

Patient avoids activities due to fear of falling

Patient sustained fall-related injuries

Significant reduction in falls of up to 80%
(Hafner et al., 2009; Kahle et al., 2008; Kannenberg et al., 2014, Kaufman et al., 2018; Mileusnic et al., 2017)

Significant reduction in fear of falling
(Mileusnic et al., 2017)

Significant reduction in the frequency of stumbles
(Hafner et al., 2009; Kannenberg et al., 2014; Mileusnic et al., 2017)

Significant improvements in balance and indicators for the risk of falling, such as Timed-up-and-go-test, ABC scale, etc.
(Burnfield et al., 2012; Hafner et al., 2007 and 2009; Kannenberg et al., 2014; Lansade et al., 2018)
Mobility Patient has difficulty negotiating slopes/hills Significant improvement in quality of slope/hill descent towards more natural gait pattern
(Burnfield et al., 2012; Hafner et al., 2009; Kannenberg et al., 2014)

Significant increase in downhill walking speed of up to 36%
(Burnfield et al., 2012; Hafner et al., 2009; Kannenberg et al., 2014)
Mobility Patient has difficulty negotiating uneven terrain and obstacles Significant increase in walking speed on uneven terrain and obstacle courses of up to 20%
(Hafner et al., 2009; Kahle et al., 2008; Kannenberg et al., 2014)
Mobility Patient has difficulty descending stairs with reciprocal (step-over-step) gait Significant improvement in quality of stair descent towards natural gait pattern
(Hafner et al., 2009; Kahle et al., 2008; Kannenberg et al., 2014)
Mobility Patient has difficulty with dual tasking while walking with the prosthesis Significantly improved capacity and performance in executing a concurrent task while walking with the prosthesis
(Hafner et al., 2009; Kannenberg et al., 2014; Mileusnic et al., 2017)
Mobility Patient has difficulty with performing activities of daily living Significantly improved performance in the execution of various activities of daily living
(Theeven et al., 2011 and 2012; Kannenberg et al., 2014)
Mobility Patient is limited in his/her mobility

Patient uses a wheelchair and a prosthesis

 Significant increase in over-ground walking speed of up to 25%
(Eberly et al., 2014; Kahle et al., 2008; Kannenberg et al., 2014)

Significant reduction in additional use of a wheelchair from 87% to 37% of subjects
(Mileusnic et al., 2017)

Patients spent significantly more time active and significantly less time sitting
(Kaufman et al., 2018)

About 50% of K2 patients are able to improve their overall mobility level to K3
(Hafner et al. 2009; Kahle et al., 2008; Kannenberg et al., 2014)

Evidence Essentials: Genium/X3 MPK

  Mobility need or deficit of the patient Evidence for benefits of the Genium/X3 compared to C-Leg
Mobility Patient feels limited in activities of daily living (ADL) and overall mobility

Significant improvement in total score of Physical Functional Performance Test (10 ADLs), and subdomains Upper Body Function, Upper Body Strength, Lower Body Strength and Balance, scores no longer different from able-bodied individuals
(Highsmith et al., 2016B; Mileusnic et al, 2019)

Significant reduction in fear of falling
(Mileusnic et al., 2017)

Significantly improved perceived ease and safety of ADLs
(Hahn et al., 2016; Kannenberg et al., 2013; Mileusnic et al, 2019)

Significant improvements AMP scores and step-activity derived functional level
(Highsmith et al., 2016A and 2016B; Mileusnic et al, 2019)
Mobility Patient has difficulty with long-distance ambulation Significant reduction of stance-phase braking forces
(Bellmann et al., 2012; Schmalz et al., 2014)

Optimized swing control with constant knee swing flexion angle of 64° across walking speed
(Bellmann et al., 2012; Schmalz et al., 2014; Mileusnic et al, 2019)

Best correction of kinematic and kinetic gait deviations and compensatory mechanisms compared to NMPK and C-Leg
(Varrecchia et al., 2019)
Mobility Patient has difficulty negotiating slopes and uneven terrain Significantly increased self-selected walking speed and quality of slope descent
(Bell et al., 2016; Mileusnic et al, 2019)

Significantly improved gait symmetry and quality and unloading of the sound limb during slope descent
(Bellmann et al., 2012; Highsmith et al., 2016A, Lura et al., 2017; Schmalz et al., 2014; Mileusnic et al, 2019)

Significantly improved knee swing flexion (toe clearance during slope descent
(Bellmann et al., 2012; Highsmith et al., 2016A, Lura et al., 2017; Mileusnic et al, 2019; Schmalz et al., 2014)

Patients rated slope and uneven terrain ambulation significantly easier and safer
(Hahn et al., 2016; Highsmith et al., 2014B; Kannenberg et al., 2013; Mileusnic et al, 2019)
Mobility Patient has difficulty negotiating stairs and clearing bigger obstacles Patients rated stair ascent and descent and clearing bigger obstacles significantly easier
(Hahn et al., 2016; Highsmith et al., 2014B; Kannenberg et al., 2013; Mileusnic et al, 2019)

Many patients improve quality of stair ascent to reciprocal (step-over-step) gait pattern that can also be used for stepping over bigger obstacles
(Aldridge et al., 2014; Bellmann et al., 2012A and 2012B; Highsmith et al., 2014A and 2016A; Mileusnic et al, 2019; Schmalz et al., 2014)
Mobility Patient has difficulty standing still for longer periods of time, especially on slopes and hills Significantly increased weight-bearing on the prosthetic side while standing still on level ground and slopes
(Bellmann et al., 2012; Highsmith et al., 2014B)

Patients rate ADLs that require standing significantly easier and safer
(Hahn et al., 2016; Kannenberg et al., 2013; Mileusnic et al, 2019)
Musculo-skeletal pain Patient suffers from joint and back pain due to gait asymmetry and excessive loading Significant improvement in gait symmetry and, thus, loading of the locomotor system
(Theeven et al., 2011 and 2012; Kannenberg et al., 2014)

Best correction of kinematic and kinetic gait deviations and compensatory mechanisms compared to NMPK and C-Leg
(Varrecchia et al., 2019)