Erik C Prinsen1, Marc J Nederhand2, Jeroen Olsman3, Johan S Rietman4. 1. Roessingh Research and Development, The Netherlands Laboratory of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands e.prinsen@rrd.nl. 2. Roessingh Research and Development, The Netherlands. 3. Roessingh Rehabilitation Technique, The Netherlands. 4. Roessingh Research and Development, The Netherlands Laboratory of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands.
Abstract
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. CONCLUSIONS: Transition towards the Rheo Knee(®) II had little effect on the studied outcome measures.
RCT Entities:
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. CONCLUSIONS: Transition towards the Rheo Knee(®) II had little effect on the studied outcome measures.
Authors: Christine Chen; Mark Hanson; Ritika Chaturvedi; Soeren Mattke; Richard Hillestad; Harry H Liu Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 4.262