Safety, energy efficiency, and cost efficacy of the C-Leg for transfemoral amputees: A review of the literature

References

• Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, Mackenzie EJ. Limb amputation and limb deficiency: Epidemiology and recent trends in the United States. South Med J 2002;95(8):875–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, Mackenzie EJ. Racial differences in the incidence of limb loss secondary to peripheral vascular disease: A population-based study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83(9):1252–1257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore TJ, Barron J, Hutchinson F 3rd, Golden C, Ellis C, Humphries D. Prosthetic usage following major lower extremity amputation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;(238):219–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ, Hubbard SL. Comparison of nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008;45(1):1–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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. J Rehabil Res Dev 2009;46(3):417–433.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Otto Bock Healthcare. Accessed 3 March 2010 from the website: http://ottobockus.com/cps/rde/xchg/ob_us_en/hs.xsl/17084.html
   Google Scholar
• Research in P&O: Are we addressing clinically-relevant problems?: Report on the State-of-the-Science Meeting in Prosthetics and Orthotics. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Chicago, IL, 2006. Accessed 8 March 2010 from the website: http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/depts/repoc/sections/publications/papers/sos_reports/SOS_2006report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 2003;83(8):713–721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SIGN 50 Methodology Checklist 2: Randomised Controlled Trials. (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network). Updated January 2008. Accessed 1 October 2009 from the website: http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/50/checklist2.html
   Google Scholar
• Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, Bloom BS, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care 2003;41(1):32–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• University of Oxford. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation. Updated September 2009. Accessed 1 October 2009 from the website: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o = 1025
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J, editor. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed Hillsdale, NJErlbaum1988
   Google Scholar
• Stevens PM, Carson R. Case report: Using the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale to quantify the impact of prosthetic knee choice on balance confidence. J Prosthet Orthot 2007;19(4):114–116.
   Google Scholar
• Seelen HAM, Hemmen B, Schmeets AJ, Ament AJH, Evers SMA. Costs and consequences of a prosthesis with an electronically stance and swing phase controlled knee joint. Technol Disabil 2009;21(1–2):25–34.
   Google Scholar
• Blumentritt S, Schmalz T, Jarasch R. The safety of C-leg: Biomechanical tests. J Prosthet Orthot 2009;21(1):2–17.
   Google Scholar
• Berry D, Olson MD, Larntz K. Perceived stability, function, and satisfaction among transfemoral amputees using microprocessor and nonmicroprocessor controlled prosthetic knees: A multicenter survey. J Prosthet Orthot 2009;21(1):32–42.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman KR, Levine JA, Brey RH, Iverson BK, McCrady SK, Padgett DJ, et al. Gait and balance of transfemoral amputees using passive mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Gait Posture 2007;26(4):489–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):207–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin T, Machida K, Sawamura S, Shiba R, Oyabu H, Nagakura Y, 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. Prosthet Orthot Int 2006;30(1):73–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. J Prosthet Orthot 2009;21(1):43–47.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman KR, Levine JA, Brey RH, McCrady SK, Padgett DJ, Joyner MJ. Energy expenditure and activity of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89(7):1380–1385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymour R, Engbretson B, Kott K, Ordway N, Brooks G, Crannell J, 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. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007;31(1):51–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orendurff MS, Segal AD, Klute GK, McDowell ML, Pecoraro JA, Czerniecki JM. Gait efficiency using the C-Leg. J Rehabil Res Dev 2006;43(2):239–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(8):563–575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(10):1711–1717.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Jarasch R. Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: The influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components. Gait Posture 2002;16(3):255–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Eur J Health Econ 2009;10(1):47–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodtkorb TH, Henriksson M, Johannesen-Munk K, Thidell F. Cost-effectiveness of C-leg compared with non-microprocessor-controlled knees: A modeling approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89(1):24–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tinetti ME, Mendes de Leon CF, Doucette JT, Baker DI. Fear of falling and fall-related efficacy in relationship to functioning among community-living elders. J Gerontol 1994;49(3):M140–147.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miller WC, Speechley M, Deathe B. The prevalence and risk factors of falling and fear of falling among lower extremity amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82(8):1031–1037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller WC, Speechley M, Deathe AB. Balance confidence among people with lower-limb amputations. Phys Ther 2002;82(9):856–865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller WC, Deathe AB, Speechley M, Koval J. The influence of falling, fear of falling, and balance confidence on prosthetic mobility and social activity among individuals with a lower extremity amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82(9):1238–1244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitter A, Czerniecki J, Weaver K. A reassessment of center-of-mass dynamics as a determinate of the metabolic inefficiency of above-knee amputee ambulation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1995;74(5):332–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman MD, Sheldahl LM, Buley KJ, Sandford PR. Physiological comparison of walking among bilateral above-knee amputee and able-bodied subjects, and a model to account for the differences in metabolic cost. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78(4):385–392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson L, McNeill G, Haggarty P, Smith JS, Franklin MF. Free-living energy expenditure of adult men assessed by continuous heart-rate monitoring and doubly-labelled water. Br J Nutr 1997;78(5):695–708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montoye H, Kemper H, Saris W, Washburn R. Measuring physical activity and energy expenditure. Champaign: Human Kinetics.1995.
   Google Scholar
• Klute GK, Berge JS, Orendurff MS, Williams RM, Czerniecki JM. Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87(5):717–722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston MV, Sherer M, Whyte J. Applying evidence standards to rehabilitation research. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2006;85(4):292–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whyte J. Clinical trials in rehabilitation: What are the obstacles? Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003;82(10 Suppl.):S16–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar