TY - JOUR
T1 - Influence of a user-adaptive prosthetic knee on quality of life, balance confidence, and measures of mobility: a randomised cross-over trial
AU - Prinsen, Erik Christiaan
AU - Nederhand, Marcus Johannes
AU - Rietman, Johan Swanik
AU - Koopman, Hubertus F.J.M.
PY - 2015/8/11
Y1 - 2015/8/11
N2 - Objective:
To study the influence of a transition from a non-microprocessor controlled to the Rheo Knee® II on quality of life, balance confidence and measures of mobility.
Design:
Randomised crossover trial.
Setting:
Research department of a rehabilitation centre.
Subjects:
Persons with a transfemoral amputation or knee disarticulation (n=10).
Interventions:
Participants were assessed with their own non-microprocessor controlled knee and with the Rheo Knee® II. The low-profile Vari-Flex with EVO foot was installed in both knee conditions, followed by eight weeks of acclimatisation. The order in which knees were tested was randomised.
Main measures:
Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire with addendum, Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, Timed “up & go” test, Timed up and down stairs test, Hill Assessment Index, Stairs Assessment Index, Standardized Walking Obstacle Course and One Leg Balance test.
Results:
Significant higher scores were found for the Rheo Knee® II on the Residual Limb Health subscale of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire when compared to the non-microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee (median [interquartile range] resp. 86.67 [62.21-93.08] and 68.71 [46.15-94.83]; P=0.047) In addition, participants needed significantly more steps to complete an obstacle course when walking with the Rheo Knee® II compared to the non-microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee (median [interquartile range] resp. 23.50 [19.92-26.25] and 22.17 [19.50-25.75]; P=0.041). On other outcome measures, no significant differences were found.
AB - Objective:
To study the influence of a transition from a non-microprocessor controlled to the Rheo Knee® II on quality of life, balance confidence and measures of mobility.
Design:
Randomised crossover trial.
Setting:
Research department of a rehabilitation centre.
Subjects:
Persons with a transfemoral amputation or knee disarticulation (n=10).
Interventions:
Participants were assessed with their own non-microprocessor controlled knee and with the Rheo Knee® II. The low-profile Vari-Flex with EVO foot was installed in both knee conditions, followed by eight weeks of acclimatisation. The order in which knees were tested was randomised.
Main measures:
Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire with addendum, Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, Timed “up & go” test, Timed up and down stairs test, Hill Assessment Index, Stairs Assessment Index, Standardized Walking Obstacle Course and One Leg Balance test.
Results:
Significant higher scores were found for the Rheo Knee® II on the Residual Limb Health subscale of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire when compared to the non-microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee (median [interquartile range] resp. 86.67 [62.21-93.08] and 68.71 [46.15-94.83]; P=0.047) In addition, participants needed significantly more steps to complete an obstacle course when walking with the Rheo Knee® II compared to the non-microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee (median [interquartile range] resp. 23.50 [19.92-26.25] and 22.17 [19.50-25.75]; P=0.041). On other outcome measures, no significant differences were found.
KW - 2024 OA procedure
U2 - 10.1177/0269215514552033
DO - 10.1177/0269215514552033
M3 - Article
SN - 0269-2155
VL - 29
SP - 581
EP - 591
JO - Clinical rehabilitation
JF - Clinical rehabilitation
IS - 6
ER -