Benefits of the Genium microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee on ambulation, mobility, activities of daily living and quality of life: a systematic literature review

References

• Davies B, Datta D. Mobility outcome following unilateral lower limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27:186–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbins CB, Vreeman DJ, Sothmann MS, et al. A review of the long-term health outcomes associated with war-related amputation. Mil Med. 2009;174:588–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Velzen JM, van Bennekom CA, Polomski W, et al. Physical capacity and walking ability after lower limb amputation: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:999–1016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiele J, Westebbe B, Bellmann M, et al. Design and performance of microprocessor-controlled knee joints. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2014;59:65–77.
   PubMed 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
• Hafner BJ, Askew RL. Physical performance and self-report outcomes associated with use of passive, adaptive, and active prosthetic knees in persons with unilateral, transfemoral amputation: randomized crossover trial. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52:677–700.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prinsen EC, Nederhand MJ, Olsman J, et al. Influence of a user-adaptive prosthetic knee on quality of life, balance confidence, and measures of mobility: a randomized cross-over trial. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29:581–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinsen EC, Nederhand MJ, Sveinsdottir HS, et al. The influence of a user-adaptive prosthetic knee across varying walking speeds: a randomized cross-over trial. Gait Posture. 2017;51:254–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Wong CK, Rheinstein J, Stern MA. Benefits for adults with trans-femoral amputations and peripheral artery disease using microprocessor compared with nonmicroprocessor prosthetic knees. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;94:804–810.
   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;45:1–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafner BJ, Smith DG. Differences in function and safety between Medicare Functional Classification Level-2 and -3 transfemoral amputees and influ-ence of prosthetic knee joint control. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46:417–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Shepard NT, et al. The effect of the C-Leg Knee Prosthesis on sensory dependency and falls during sensory organization testing. Technol Innov. 2014;15:343–347.
   Google Scholar
• Hahn A, Lang M. Effects of mobility grade, age and etiology on functional benefit and safety of subjects evaluated in over 1200 C-Leg trial fittings in Germany. J Prosthet Orthot. 2015;27:86–94.
   Google Scholar
• Burnfield JM, Eberly VJ, Gronely JK, et al. Impact of stance phase microprocessor-controlled knee prosthesis on ramp negotiation and community walking function in K2 level transfemoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012;36:95–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong CK, Wilska J, Stern M. Balance, balance confidence, and falls using nonmicroprocessor and microprocessor knee prostheses. J Prosthet Orthot. 2012;24:16–18.
   Google Scholar
• Orendurff MS, 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
• Segal AD, Orendurff MS, Klute GK, et al. Kinematic and kinetic comparisons 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
• Mâaref K, André JM, Paysant J, 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
• Seymour R, Engbretson B, Kott K, 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;31:51–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier MR, Hansen AH, Gard SA, et al. Obstacle course: users' maneuverability and movement efficiency when using Otto Bock C-Leg, Otto Bock 3R60, and CaTech SNS prosthetic knee joints. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49:583–596.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Miro RM, et al. Ramp de-scent performance with the C-Leg and interrater reliability of the Hill Assessment Index. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013;37:362–368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmalz T. Leistungsfähigkeit verschiedener Prothesenkniegelenke beim Treppabgehen von Oberschenkelamputierten. Orthopädie-Technik Quart. 2002;7:1–6.
   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
• Theeven P, Hemmen B, Geers R, et al. Influence of advanced prosthetic knee joints on perceived performance and everyday life activity level of low-functional persons with a trans-femoral amputation or knee disarticulation. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44:454–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otto Bock Clinical Research 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.ottobock.com/en/company/clinical-research/
   Google 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;82:1031–1037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller WC, Deathe AB, Speechley M, et al. 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;82:1238–1244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Miro RM, et al. Functional performance differences between the Genium and C-Leg prosthetic knees and intact knees. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53:753–766.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Otto B. Genium leg prosthesis. Retrieved July 2019. from https://www.ottobockus.com/prosthetics/lower-limb-prosthetics/solution-overview/genium-above-knee-system/
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafner B. State-of-the-Science Evidence Report Guidelines. Washington (DC): American Academy of Orthotists & Prosthetists; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Hahn A, Lang M, Stuckart C. Analysis of clinically important factors on the performance of advanced hydraulic, microprocessor-controlled exo-prosthetic knee joints based on 899 trial fittings. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e5386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Wernke MM, et al. Effects of the Genium Knee System on functional level, stair ambulation, perceptive and economic outcomes in transfemoral amputees. Technol Innov. 2016;18:139–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Highsmith MJ, Klenow TD, Kahle JT, et al. Effects of the Genium Microprocessor Knee System on knee moment symmetry during hill walking. Technol Innov. 2016;18:151–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell EM, Pruziner AL, Wilken JM, et al. Performance of conventional and X2® prosthetic knees during slope descent. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2016;33:26–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lura DJ, Wernke MM, Carey SL, et al. Differences in knee flexion between the Genium and C-Leg microprocessor knees while walking on level ground and ramps. Clin Biomech. 2015;30:175–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldridge Whitehead JM, Wolf EJ, Scoville CR, et al. Does a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee affect stair ascent strategies in persons with transfemoral amputation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:3093–3101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Miro RM, et al. Perceived differences between the Genium and the C-Leg microprocessor prosthetic knees in prosthetic-related function and quality of life. Technol Innov. 2014;15:369–375.
   Google Scholar
• Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Lura DJ, et al. Short and mid-distance walking and posturography with a novel microprocessor knee. Technol Innov. 2014;15:359–368.
   Google Scholar
• Kannenberg A, Zacharias B, Mileusnic M, et al. Activities of daily living: Genium bionic prosthetic knee compared with C-Leg. J Prosthet Orthot. 2013;25:110–117.
   Google Scholar
• Bellmann M, Schmalz T, Ludwigs E, et al. Immediate effects of a new microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joint: a comparative biomechanical evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:541–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellmann M, Schmalz T, Ludwigs E, et al. Stair ascent with an innovative microprocessor-controlled exoprosthetic knee joint. Biomed Tech. 2012;57:435–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Highsmith MJ, Andrews CR, Millman C, et al. Gait training interventions for lower extremity amputees: a systematic literature review. Technol Innov. 2016;18:99–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gailey R, Allen K, Castles J, et al. Review of secondary physical conditions associated with lower-limb amputation and long-term prosthesis use. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45:15–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pröbsting E, Blumentritt S, Kannenberg A. Changes in the locomotor system as a consequence of amputation of a lower limb. Z Orthop Unfall. 2017;155:77–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radin EL, Parker HG, Pugh JW, et al. Response of joints to impact loading. 3. Relationship between trabecular microfractures and cartilage degeneration. J Biomech. 1973;6:51–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurwitz DE, Sumner DR, Block JA. Bone density, dynamic joint loading and joint degeneration. A review. Cells Tissues Organs. 2001;169:201–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke MJ, Roman V, Wright V. Bone and joint changes in lower limb amputees. Ann Rheum Dis. 1978;37:252–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Linde H, Hofstad CJ, Guerts ACH, et al. A systematic literature review of the effect of different prosthetic components on human functioning with a lower-limb prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41:555–570.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey SL, Lura DJ, Highsmith MJ. Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: systematic literature review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52:247–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Highsmith MJ. Microprocessor knees: considerations for accommodation and training. J Prosthet Orthot. 2013;25:60–64.
   Google Scholar