The effects of domestic mechanical knee joints on pelvic motion in transfemoral amputees

References

• Alsancak S, Altınkaynak H, Güner S. Numerical variation analysis of prostheses and orthoses fabrication and fitting in Turkey according to Social Security Administration of Turkey. Fizyoter Rehabil. 2013;24:99–103.
   Google Scholar
• Jaegers S, Arendzen JH, De Jongh HJ. The prosthetic gait of unilateral transfemoral amputees: a kinematical study. Arch Phys Med Rehabili.1995;76:736–743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaud SB, Gard SA, Childress DS. A preliminary investigation of pelvic obliquity patterns during gait in persons with transtibial and transfemoral amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000;37:1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goujon-Pillet H, Sapin E, Fode P, et al. Three–dimensional motions of trunk and pelvis during transfemoral amputee gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:87–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bae TS, Choi K, Hong D, et al. Dynamic analysis of above-knee amputee gait. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007;22:557–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabuffetti M, Recalcati M, Ferrarin M. Trans-femoral amputee gait: socket-pelvis constraints and compensation strategies. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29:183–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjödahl C, Jarnlo GB, Söderberg B, et al. Kinematic and kinetic gait analysis in the sagittal plane of trans-femoral amputees before and after special gait re-education. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002;26:101–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjödahl C, Jarnlo GB, Söderberg B, et al. Pelvic motion in trans-femoral amputees in the frontal and transverse plane before and after special gait re-education. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27:227–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tazawa E. Analysis of torso movement of trans-femoral amputees during level walking. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1997;21:129–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uchytil J, Jandacka D, Farana R. Kinematics of gait using bionic and hydrolic knee joints in transfemoral amputees. Acta Gymnica. 2017;47:130–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellmann M, Schmalz T, Blumentritt S. Comparative biomechanical analysis of current microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:644–652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson JL, Sherrill DM, Riley PO, et al. A clinical comparison of variable-damping and mechanically passive prosthetic knee devices. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84:563–575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman KR, Frittoli S, Frigo CA. Gait asymmetry of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Clin Biomech. 2012;27:460–465.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mâaref K, Martinet N, Grumillier C, et al. Kinematics in the terminal swing phase of unilateral transfemoral amputees: microprocessor-controlled versus swing-phase control prosthetic knees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:919–925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal DA, Orendurff MS, Klute GK, et al. Kinematic and kinetic comparison of transfemoral amputee gait using C-Leg and Mauch SNS prosthetic knees. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43:857–870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silver-Thorn BM, Glaister CL. Functional stability of transfemoral amputee gait using the 3R80 and Total Knee 2000 prosthetic knee units. J Prosthet Orthot. 2009;21:18–31.
   Google Scholar
• Blumentritt S, Schmalz T, Jarasch R. The safety of C-Leg: biomechanical test. J Prosthet Orthot Int. 2009;21:2–15.
   Google Scholar
• Microprocessor–Controlled Lower limb prosthesis. Washington State Health Authority, Health Technology Assessment, Report. 2011 [cited accessed 2011 Oct 12]. https://hca.wa.gov/assets/program/mc_lower_prosthetic_final_report%5B1%5D.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Saunders GT. Above knee (AK), thigh (Th), partial. In: Saunders GT, editor. Lower limb amputations: a guide to rehabilitation. Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis Company; 1986. p. 241–243.
   Google Scholar
• Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, et al. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:207–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orendurff M, Segal AD, Klute GK, et al. Gait efficiency using the c-leg. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43:239–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heller BW, Datta D, Howitt J. A pilot study comparing the cognitive demand of walking for transfemoral amputees using the intelligent prosthesis with that using conventionally damped knees. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14:518–522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miki H, Sugano N, Hagio K, et al. Recovery of walking speed and symmetrical movement of the pelvis and lower extremity joints after unilateral THA. J Biomech. 2004;37:443–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sapin E, Goujon H, Almeıda F, et al. Functional gait analysis of transfemoral amputees using two different single-axis prosthetic knees with hydraulic swing-phase control: kinematic and kinetic comparison of two prosthetic knees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008;32:201–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn K. Computerized lower limb prostheses. Veterans Affairs Technology Assessment Program Short Report. Boston: Department of Veterans Affairs Technology Assessment Program; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Been E, Kalichman L. Lumbar lordosis. Spine J. 2014;14:87–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutti AG, Lettieri E, Del Maestro M, et al. Stratified cost-utility analysis of C-Leg versus mechanical knees: findings from an Italian sample of transfemoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41:227–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uchytil J, Jandacka D, Zahradnik D, et al. Temporal-spatial parameters of gait in transfemoral amputees: comparison of bionic and mechanically passive knee joints. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38:199–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tranberg R, Zügner R, Karrholm J. Improvements in hip and pelvic motion for patients with osseointegrated transfemoral prostheses. Gait Posture. 2011;33:165–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar