Mobility made possible.
OASIS 1: Retrospective analysis of four different microprocessor knee types
Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive
Technologies Engineering
Volume 7: 1–10
©The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2055668320968476
journals.sagepub.com/home/jrt
PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE PAPER HERE
___________________________
OASIS 1: Retrospective analysis of four different microprocessor knee types
James H Campbell1, Phillip M Stevens1,2 and Shane R Wurdeman1,3
Abstract
Introduction: Microprocessor knee analyses to date have been primarily limited to microprocessor knees as a category rather than comparisons across different models. The purpose of the current analysis was to compare outcomes from four common knee models.
Methods: A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes was performed. Outcomes for functional mobility, quality of life, satisfaction with amputee status, and injurious falls were compared. Specific knee types represented were C-Leg (Ottobock), Orion (Blatchford), Plie (Freedom Innovations), and Rheo (Ossur).
Results: Outcomes from 602 individuals were included. No significant differences were noted for functional mobility (H=2.91, p=0.406) or satisfaction (H=4.43, p=0.219). For quality of life, differences existed for C-Leg versus Plie (p=0.010). For injurious falls, C-Leg (X2(1,137)=10.99, p<0.001) and Orion (X2(1,119)=4.34, p=-0.037) resulted in significantly reduced injurious falls compared to non-microprocessor knee users. C-Leg (H=19.63, p<0.001) and Plie (H=14.04, p=0.003) users saw declines with advanced aging.
Conclusions: Our data indicate relative parity among the 4 microprocessor knees with regard to functional mobility and satisfaction. In contrast to mobility, neither satisfaction nor quality of life values reflected declines with aging. Finally, when compared to non-microprocessor knees, significant differences were observed across the microprocessor knee types in relation to the reduction of injurious falls.
Keywords: MPK, mobility, quality of life, falls, amputee, outcomes
Date received: 15 June 2020; accepted: 5 October 2020
_____________________________________________
1 Department of Clinical and Scientific Affairs, Hanger Clinic, Austin, TX, USA
2 School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
3 Department of Biomechanics, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA
Corresponding author:
James H Campbell, Department of Clinical and Scientific Affairs, Hanger
Clinic, Austin, TX, USA.
Email: [email protected]