Literature DB >> 33155559

Effects of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees on self-reported mobility, quality of life, and psychological states in patients with transfemoral amputations.

Ekin İlke Şen1, Tuğba Aydın2, Derya Buğdaycı2, Fatma Nur Kesiktaş2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the effects of the microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee (MPK) joint on self-mobility, body perceptions, depression, and quality of life in patients with unilateral transfemoral amputations (TFAs).
METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients (28 males, mean age=38.5 years, age range=22-57) who had previously used non-MPKs and who were approved to use swing and stance phase-control MPKs were included in this 12-week clinical study. Before the MPK use and after the three-month follow-up, prosthetic use and locomotor capabilities were evaluated using the Houghton Scale and the Locomotor Capabilities Index (LCI-5), respectively. Body perception was assessed using the Amputee Body Image Scale (ABIS). The depressive symptoms and quality of life were evaluated using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score and the 36-Item Short- Form Health Survey (SF-36), respectively.
RESULTS: After MPK use, statistically significant ameliorations were observed in all outcome measures. The basic and advanced LCI-5 increased from 26.7±2.2 and 24.8±5.2 to 27.6±1.2 (p=0.007) and 27±2.1 (p=0.004), respectively. Houghton scores improved from 9±1 to 10.3±0.8 (p=0.000). The ABIS and BDI scores decreased from 43.2±10.9 and 5.7±6.6 to 37.1±8.9 (p=0.000) and 3.8±4.5 (p=0.015), respectively. Also, the SF-36 physical function and vitality subscales increased from 71.2±24.0 and 75.5±14.6 to 85.6±16.6 (p=0.001) and 81.7±14.1 (p=0.015), respectively.
CONCLUSION: MPK use provides significant improvements in the locomotor capabilities, quality of life, and activities of daily living to patients with TFAs as well as improves their body image perceptions and depressive symptoms. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Self controlled study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33155559      PMCID: PMC7646606          DOI: 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19269

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc        ISSN: 1017-995X            Impact factor:   1.511


  34 in total

Review 1.  SF-36 health survey update.

Authors:  J E Ware
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  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.

Authors:  Ron Seymour; Brenda Engbretson; Karen Kott; Nathaniel Ordway; Gary Brooks; Jessica Crannell; Elise Hickernell; Katie Wheeler
Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.895

3.  Comparison of nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference.

Authors:  Jason T Kahle; M Jason Highsmith; Sandra L Hubbard
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2008

4.  The comparison of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor- controlled prosthetic knee under different walking speeds: A randomized cross-over trial.

Authors:  Wujing Cao; Hongliu Yu; Weiliang Zhao; Qiaoling Meng; Wenming Chen
Journal:  Technol Health Care       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 1.285

Review 5.  Outcomes associated with the use of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees among individuals with unilateral transfemoral limb loss: a systematic review.

Authors:  Andrew B Sawers; Brian J Hafner
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2013

6.  Cross cultural adaptation and reliability of the Turkish version of Amputee Body Image Scale (ABIS).

Authors:  Gonca Bumin; Kezban Bayramlar; Yavuz Yakut; Gül Yavuz Yakut Sener
Journal:  J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.398

7.  Differences in knee flexion between the Genium and C-Leg microprocessor knees while walking on level ground and ramps.

Authors:  Derek J Lura; Matthew M Wernke; Stephanie L Carey; Jason T Kahle; Rebecca M Miro; M Jason Highsmith
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2014-12-13       Impact factor: 2.063

8.  Lower extremity prosthetic mobility: a comparison of 3 self-report scales.

Authors:  W C Miller; A B Deathe; M Speechley
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 3.966

Review 9.  Measures and procedures utilized to determine the added value of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints: a systematic review.

Authors:  Patrick J R Theeven; Bea Hemmen; Peter R G Brink; Rob J E M Smeets; Henk A M Seelen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  The quality of life analysis of knee prosthesis with complete microprocessor control in trans-femoral amputees.

Authors:  Yavuz Saglam; Baris Gulenc; Fevzi Birisik; Ali Ersen; Ebru Yilmaz Yalcinkaya; Onder Yazicioglu
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 1.511

View more
  1 in total

1.  Characterizing the Gait of People With Different Types of Amputation and Prosthetic Components Through Multimodal Measurements: A Methodological Perspective.

Authors:  Cristiano De Marchis; Simone Ranaldi; Tiwana Varrecchia; Mariano Serrao; Stefano Filippo Castiglia; Antonella Tatarelli; Alberto Ranavolo; Francesco Draicchio; Francesco Lacquaniti; Silvia Conforto
Journal:  Front Rehabil Sci       Date:  2022-03-17
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.