Evaluation of Function, Performance, and Preference as Transfemoral Amputees Transition From Mechanical to Microprocessor Control of the Prosthetic Knee
Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee. To evaluate differences in function, performance, and preference between mechanical and mi...
Saved in:
| Published in | Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation Vol. 88; no. 2; pp. 207 - 217 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
New York, NY
Elsevier Inc
01.02.2007
Elsevier |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
| ISSN | 0003-9993 1532-821X |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030 |
Cover
| Abstract | Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee.
To evaluate differences in function, performance, and preference between mechanical and microprocessor prosthetic knee control technologies.
A-B-A-B reversal design.
Home, community, and laboratory environments.
Twenty-one unilateral, transfemoral amputees.
Mechanical control prosthetic knee versus microprocessor control prosthetic knee (Otto Bock C-Leg).
Stair rating, hill rating and time, obstacle course time, divided attention task accuracy and time, Amputee Mobility Predictor score, step activity, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire score, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score, self-reported frequency of stumbles and falls, and self-reported concentration required for ambulation.
Stair descent score, hill descent time, and hill sound-side step length showed significant (
P<.01) improvement with the C-Leg. Users reported a significant (
P<.05) decrease in frequency of stumbles and falls, frustration with falling, and difficulty in multitasking while using the microprocessor knee. Subject satisfaction with the C-Leg was significantly (
P<.001) greater than the mechanical control prosthesis.
The study population showed improved performance when negotiating stairs and hills, reduced frequency of stumbling and falling, and a preference for the microprocessor control C-Leg as compared with the mechanical control prosthetic knee. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee.
To evaluate differences in function, performance, and preference between mechanical and microprocessor prosthetic knee control technologies.
A-B-A-B reversal design.
Home, community, and laboratory environments.
Twenty-one unilateral, transfemoral amputees.
Mechanical control prosthetic knee versus microprocessor control prosthetic knee (Otto Bock C-Leg).
Stair rating, hill rating and time, obstacle course time, divided attention task accuracy and time, Amputee Mobility Predictor score, step activity, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire score, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score, self-reported frequency of stumbles and falls, and self-reported concentration required for ambulation.
Stair descent score, hill descent time, and hill sound-side step length showed significant (
P<.01) improvement with the C-Leg. Users reported a significant (
P<.05) decrease in frequency of stumbles and falls, frustration with falling, and difficulty in multitasking while using the microprocessor knee. Subject satisfaction with the C-Leg was significantly (
P<.001) greater than the mechanical control prosthesis.
The study population showed improved performance when negotiating stairs and hills, reduced frequency of stumbling and falling, and a preference for the microprocessor control C-Leg as compared with the mechanical control prosthetic knee. To evaluate differences in function, performance, and preference between mechanical and microprocessor prosthetic knee control technologies.OBJECTIVETo evaluate differences in function, performance, and preference between mechanical and microprocessor prosthetic knee control technologies.A-B-A-B reversal design.DESIGNA-B-A-B reversal design.Home, community, and laboratory environments.SETTINGHome, community, and laboratory environments.Twenty-one unilateral, transfemoral amputees.PARTICIPANTSTwenty-one unilateral, transfemoral amputees.Mechanical control prosthetic knee versus microprocessor control prosthetic knee (Otto Bock C-Leg).INTERVENTIONMechanical control prosthetic knee versus microprocessor control prosthetic knee (Otto Bock C-Leg).Stair rating, hill rating and time, obstacle course time, divided attention task accuracy and time, Amputee Mobility Predictor score, step activity, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire score, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score, self-reported frequency of stumbles and falls, and self-reported concentration required for ambulation.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESStair rating, hill rating and time, obstacle course time, divided attention task accuracy and time, Amputee Mobility Predictor score, step activity, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire score, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score, self-reported frequency of stumbles and falls, and self-reported concentration required for ambulation.Stair descent score, hill descent time, and hill sound-side step length showed significant (P<.01) improvement with the C-Leg. Users reported a significant (P<.05) decrease in frequency of stumbles and falls, frustration with falling, and difficulty in multitasking while using the microprocessor knee. Subject satisfaction with the C-Leg was significantly (P<.001) greater than the mechanical control prosthesis.RESULTSStair descent score, hill descent time, and hill sound-side step length showed significant (P<.01) improvement with the C-Leg. Users reported a significant (P<.05) decrease in frequency of stumbles and falls, frustration with falling, and difficulty in multitasking while using the microprocessor knee. Subject satisfaction with the C-Leg was significantly (P<.001) greater than the mechanical control prosthesis.The study population showed improved performance when negotiating stairs and hills, reduced frequency of stumbling and falling, and a preference for the microprocessor control C-Leg as compared with the mechanical control prosthetic knee.CONCLUSIONSThe study population showed improved performance when negotiating stairs and hills, reduced frequency of stumbling and falling, and a preference for the microprocessor control C-Leg as compared with the mechanical control prosthetic knee. To evaluate differences in function, performance, and preference between mechanical and microprocessor prosthetic knee control technologies. A-B-A-B reversal design. Home, community, and laboratory environments. Twenty-one unilateral, transfemoral amputees. Mechanical control prosthetic knee versus microprocessor control prosthetic knee (Otto Bock C-Leg). Stair rating, hill rating and time, obstacle course time, divided attention task accuracy and time, Amputee Mobility Predictor score, step activity, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire score, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score, self-reported frequency of stumbles and falls, and self-reported concentration required for ambulation. Stair descent score, hill descent time, and hill sound-side step length showed significant (P<.01) improvement with the C-Leg. Users reported a significant (P<.05) decrease in frequency of stumbles and falls, frustration with falling, and difficulty in multitasking while using the microprocessor knee. Subject satisfaction with the C-Leg was significantly (P<.001) greater than the mechanical control prosthesis. The study population showed improved performance when negotiating stairs and hills, reduced frequency of stumbling and falling, and a preference for the microprocessor control C-Leg as compared with the mechanical control prosthetic knee. Abstract Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee. Objective To evaluate differences in function, performance, and preference between mechanical and microprocessor prosthetic knee control technologies. Design A-B-A-B reversal design. Setting Home, community, and laboratory environments. Participants Twenty-one unilateral, transfemoral amputees. Intervention Mechanical control prosthetic knee versus microprocessor control prosthetic knee (Otto Bock C-Leg). Main Outcome Measures Stair rating, hill rating and time, obstacle course time, divided attention task accuracy and time, Amputee Mobility Predictor score, step activity, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire score, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score, self-reported frequency of stumbles and falls, and self-reported concentration required for ambulation. Results Stair descent score, hill descent time, and hill sound-side step length showed significant ( P <.01) improvement with the C-Leg. Users reported a significant ( P <.05) decrease in frequency of stumbles and falls, frustration with falling, and difficulty in multitasking while using the microprocessor knee. Subject satisfaction with the C-Leg was significantly ( P <.001) greater than the mechanical control prosthesis. Conclusions The study population showed improved performance when negotiating stairs and hills, reduced frequency of stumbling and falling, and a preference for the microprocessor control C-Leg as compared with the mechanical control prosthetic knee. |
| Author | Buell, Noelle C. Hafner, Brian J. Smith, Douglas G. Willingham, Laura L. Allyn, Katheryn J. |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Brian J. surname: Hafner fullname: Hafner, Brian J. email: brian.hafner@prs-research.org – sequence: 2 givenname: Laura L. surname: Willingham fullname: Willingham, Laura L. – sequence: 3 givenname: Noelle C. surname: Buell fullname: Buell, Noelle C. – sequence: 4 givenname: Katheryn J. surname: Allyn fullname: Allyn, Katheryn J. – sequence: 5 givenname: Douglas G. surname: Smith fullname: Smith, Douglas G. |
| BackLink | http://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=18521932$$DView record in Pascal Francis https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17270519$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNqFkl9rFDEUxYNU7B_9Aj5IXvSpuyaZSWZGRChLV8UWC1bwLWSyd2jWmWRNMoV-Ez-ud3ZXhYL1KZPL75xkzskxOfDBAyHPOZtzxtXr9dxshjgXjCkczFnBHpEjLgsxqwX_dkCOGGPFrGma4pAcp7TGrZIFf0IOeSUqJnlzRH6e35p-NNkFT0NHl6O30_cpvYLYhTgYb-GUGr-iVxE6iIB7ahK9jsanDoYQTU_Phs2YAfZTtzVbxjDQS7A3xjuLTA700tkYNjFYSClEugg-x9BPx-YbQP-QcM3O0k8e4Cl53Jk-wbP9ekK-Ls-vFx9mF5_ff1ycXcyslCrPWllZI6qmYELKWpatbLhltbG16lTdrEretpXiBW8b4GVXIN2xVpVC2LaSJStOyKudL17sxwgp68ElC31vPIQxaTRRlaom8MUeHNsBVnoT3WDinf6dJQIv94BJ-McdZmFd-svVUiAlkKt3HKaREqaqrcvbBnI0rtec6alevdZTvXqqd5phvSgV96R_3B8Svd2JAGO8dRB1sm7qceUi2KxXwT0sf3dPbnu37fQ73EFahzF6LEhznYRm-sv06KY3xxTjZc1qNHjzb4P_nf4Lp9vn9w |
| CODEN | APMHAI |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1682_JRRD_2014_06_0149 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12984_022_01070_y crossref_primary_10_3389_fneur_2018_00270 crossref_primary_10_1093_milmed_usad005 crossref_primary_10_1155_2018_8783642 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12984_018_0403_x crossref_primary_10_1080_17483107_2017_1300344 crossref_primary_10_5435_JAAOS_20_08_S80 crossref_primary_10_1109_TNSRE_2009_2023292 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12984_024_01402_0 crossref_primary_10_1097_TGR_0b013e318215cbb3 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e3181e8fe8a crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pmrj_2014_06_006 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2007_07_049 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2010_06_013 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2017_06_343 crossref_primary_10_1682_JRRD_2014_09_0210 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_medengphy_2017_03_003 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000415 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364613497049 crossref_primary_10_1142_S0219519420500219 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12984_021_00902_7 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364617708649 crossref_primary_10_1080_10833196_2017_1412788 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2007_11_053 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e3181ccc986 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pmr_2013_10_001 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pmr_2009_08_003 crossref_primary_10_1515_bmt_2017_0053 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364616637954 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e318195b1d1 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12984_021_00810_w crossref_primary_10_3390_biomimetics6020022 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364612470482 crossref_primary_10_1080_09638288_2022_2065539 crossref_primary_10_1109_JTEHM_2014_2343228 crossref_primary_10_3390_s20092543 crossref_primary_10_1097_TGR_0b013e31818cd024 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2020_037850 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2012_06_009 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0271315 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2016_02_024 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364611408495 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcl_2009_10_001 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_aott_2017_04_004 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2016_08_016 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2012_12_013 crossref_primary_10_1080_17483107_2019_1602853 crossref_primary_10_3138_jmvfh_2021_0094 crossref_primary_10_9728_dcs_2023_24_12_3239 crossref_primary_10_1080_09638288_2023_2258342 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2020_08_013 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinbiomech_2018_05_015 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_022_19701_8 crossref_primary_10_1080_10400435_2018_1530701 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e3181cc0e34 crossref_primary_10_1109_TBME_2011_2160173 crossref_primary_10_1080_19498241_2024_2420559 crossref_primary_10_1080_09638288_2023_2208376 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_robot_2017_05_004 crossref_primary_10_1515_bmt_2010_057 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13246_020_00882_3 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2013_01_020 crossref_primary_10_1080_09638288_2024_2328313 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0276874 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2007_11_012 crossref_primary_10_1177_0278364914545673 crossref_primary_10_3109_03093646_2010_520054 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40141_023_00383_w crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinbiomech_2016_01_008 crossref_primary_10_1177_2055668320968476 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000064 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2016_09_025 crossref_primary_10_3390_s22062243 crossref_primary_10_1152_japplphysiol_01251_2011 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rehab_2020_03_016 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2013_04_009 crossref_primary_10_1186_1471_2474_14_333 crossref_primary_10_3389_fnbot_2020_565702 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12984_018_0405_8 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rehab_2018_04_003 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e3182a891b5 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000174 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rehab_2013_05_001 crossref_primary_10_3389_fresc_2022_854404 crossref_primary_10_1109_TBME_2023_3340628 crossref_primary_10_1155_2015_261801 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0065340 crossref_primary_10_1682_JRRD_2013_01_0024 crossref_primary_10_1109_TMECH_2014_2337514 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364611431611 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2017_07_033 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12984_021_00944_x crossref_primary_10_1002_pmrj_12702 crossref_primary_10_1088_1361_665X_aadd5c crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinbiomech_2018_04_007 crossref_primary_10_1126_scirobotics_aba6635 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000028 crossref_primary_10_1590_0103_5150_029_001_AO12 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pmrj_2018_08_385 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000029 crossref_primary_10_1097_PXR_0000000000000043 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2007_07_011 crossref_primary_10_2522_ptj_20150566 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinbiomech_2014_12_003 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364618789453 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12984_023_01234_4 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e31829afc1c crossref_primary_10_1177_0269215514552033 crossref_primary_10_3390_biomechanics3040040 crossref_primary_10_1115_1_4043323 crossref_primary_10_3390_app132312719 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e318193ee0b crossref_primary_10_1109_TNSRE_2013_2285101 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e318192e96a crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364612461166 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2013_01_007 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000000 crossref_primary_10_1088_1757_899X_673_1_012109 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12984_022_01097_1 crossref_primary_10_1682_JRRD_2014_05_0118 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364616677650 crossref_primary_10_1093_ptj_pzab310 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e31829c221f crossref_primary_10_1016_S0276_1092_08_79398_2 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e3182a8953e crossref_primary_10_1080_09638288_2021_1989504 crossref_primary_10_1177_21695067231216121 crossref_primary_10_2196_45612 crossref_primary_10_1515_bmt_2013_0069 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364611407677 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000232 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40141_014_0068_8 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e31829be7bc crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000236 crossref_primary_10_1080_09638288_2023_2280066 crossref_primary_10_1109_TMECH_2019_2952084 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000355 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2018_03_012 crossref_primary_10_47671_TVG_79_23_079 crossref_primary_10_1155_2019_9252368 crossref_primary_10_3389_fresc_2022_790538 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2017_07_114 crossref_primary_10_1109_TCST_2019_2928514 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2013_01_023 crossref_primary_10_1080_10400435_2021_2010147 crossref_primary_10_3109_09593985_2011_631695 crossref_primary_10_3389_fresc_2023_1203545 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bbe_2013_03_004 crossref_primary_10_1109_TRO_2022_3152134 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00113_017_0334_1 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinbiomech_2022_105774 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinbiomech_2018_07_012 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364618785728 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364611425564 crossref_primary_10_3390_prosthesis4010007 crossref_primary_10_1088_1748_3190_aa575c crossref_primary_10_1097_PXR_0000000000000358 crossref_primary_10_1080_09638288_2021_1891467 crossref_primary_10_1177_1071181322661082 crossref_primary_10_1089_wound_2019_1079 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000214 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e3182a8a922 crossref_primary_10_1242_jeb_225086 crossref_primary_10_1177_1045389X20983923 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364614542725 crossref_primary_10_1097_PHM_0000000000001213 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2009_07_078 crossref_primary_10_23736_S1973_9087_22_07020_4 crossref_primary_10_3390_s22051731 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364616682385 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinbiomech_2011_11_011 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000449 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364614550264 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0b013e3182435f12 crossref_primary_10_1177_0309364611432794 crossref_primary_10_1097_PXR_0000000000000017 crossref_primary_10_1097_PXR_0000000000000138 crossref_primary_10_1682_JRRD_2012_12_0233 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10198_019_01138_y crossref_primary_10_1097_PXR_0000000000000374 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11659_013_0369_9 crossref_primary_10_1080_17483107_2019_1646822 crossref_primary_10_3390_prosthesis6020018 crossref_primary_10_1097_PHM_0000000000000265 crossref_primary_10_1080_17483107_2019_1648570 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12938_016_0287_6 crossref_primary_10_2522_ptj_20120527 crossref_primary_10_1097_JPO_0000000000000559 crossref_primary_10_21653_tjpr_618199 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2011_10_017 crossref_primary_10_1682_JRRD_2012_05_0098 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_019_3920_4 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12984_020_00711_4 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph19148279 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1080/03093640500533414 10.3109/03093649609164428 10.1097/01.phm.0000174665.74933.0b 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.02.028 10.1097/00003086-199904000-00006 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.02.007 10.3109/03093649809164474 10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90090-9 10.1191/0269215505cr805oa 10.1302/0301-620X.87B1.14617 10.1097/01.PHM.0000069191.20125.38 10.1191/0269215500cr345oa 10.1053/ampr.2002.32309 10.1016/S0003-9993(97)90044-7 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2007 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2007 INIST-CNRS |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2007 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation – notice: American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation – notice: 2007 INIST-CNRS |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION IQODW CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030 |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef Pascal-Francis Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine Physical Therapy |
| EISSN | 1532-821X |
| EndPage | 217 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 17270519 18521932 10_1016_j_apmr_2006_10_030 S0003999306014808 1_s2_0_S0003999306014808 |
| Genre | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Controlled Clinical Trial Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | --- --K -~X .1- .55 .FO .GJ 07C 0R~ 1B1 1CY 1P~ 1~5 23N 3O- 4.4 41~ 457 4G. 53G 5GY 5RE 5VS 6J9 7-5 AAEDT AAEDW AALRI AAQFI AAQOH AAQQT AAQXK AAWTL AAXUO AAYWO ABDQB ABFRF ABJNI ABLJU ABMAC ABOCM ABUFD ABWVN ACBNA ACGFO ACGUR ACRPL ADBBV ADMUD ADNMO ADRMJ AEFWE AENEX AEVXI AFFNX AFJKZ AFRHN AFTJW AGNAY AGQPQ AI. AIGII AITUG AJUYK AKRWK ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMRAJ APXCP ASPBG AVWKF AZFZN BELOY BR6 C5W CAG COF CS3 E3Z EBS EFJIC EFKBS EJD F5P FDB FEDTE FGOYB FIRID G-Q GBLVA HVGLF HZ~ IHE J1W J5H K-O KOM KOO L7B M41 MO0 N4W NEJ NQ- O-3 O9- OH. OHT OK1 OT. P2P QTD QZG R2- ROL RPZ SEL SES SJN SKT SSZ TWZ UDS UGJ UHB UHS UPT UQV UV1 VH1 WH7 WHG X7M XH2 XOL YQJ YRY YZZ Z5R ZGI ZXP ~S- ADPAM AFCTW AGZHU FRP PKN RIG AAGJQ AAIAV AFDAS AHPSJ ALXNB ZA5 AAYXX CITATION AGCQF IQODW CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c556t-b57ca27930255854b591c08ac86f689d41bb76131b9e14f37caf0b6422cb75403 |
| ISSN | 0003-9993 |
| IngestDate | Tue Oct 21 14:04:38 EDT 2025 Wed Feb 19 01:42:10 EST 2025 Mon Jul 21 09:12:41 EDT 2025 Wed Oct 01 03:27:21 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:11:39 EDT 2025 Fri Feb 23 02:28:33 EST 2024 Sun Feb 23 10:18:42 EST 2025 Tue Oct 14 19:29:11 EDT 2025 |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 2 |
| Keywords | Knee Artificial limbs Amputees Patient satisfaction Rehabilitation Performance evaluation Obstacle Prognosis Questionnaire Self evaluation Prosthesis Mobility Accuracy Regulation(control) Technology Community home Attention Stair Leg Survey Orthopedic surgery Treatment Preference Unilateral Environment Predictive factor Comparative study |
| Language | English |
| License | https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0 CC BY 4.0 |
| LinkModel | OpenURL |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c556t-b57ca27930255854b591c08ac86f689d41bb76131b9e14f37caf0b6422cb75403 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 |
| PMID | 17270519 |
| PQID | 68967670 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| PageCount | 11 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_68967670 pubmed_primary_17270519 pascalfrancis_primary_18521932 crossref_citationtrail_10_1016_j_apmr_2006_10_030 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2006_10_030 elsevier_sciencedirect_doi_10_1016_j_apmr_2006_10_030 elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S0003999306014808 elsevier_clinicalkey_doi_10_1016_j_apmr_2006_10_030 |
| ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2007-02-01 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2007-02-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 02 year: 2007 text: 2007-02-01 day: 01 |
| PublicationDecade | 2000 |
| PublicationPlace | New York, NY |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: New York, NY – name: United States |
| PublicationTitle | Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Arch Phys Med Rehabil |
| PublicationYear | 2007 |
| Publisher | Elsevier Inc Elsevier |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Elsevier Inc – name: Elsevier |
| References | Chin, Sawamura, Shiba, Oyabu, Nagakura, Nakagawa (bib7) 2005; 87 Johansson, Sherrill, Riley, Bonato, Herr (bib11) 2005; 84 Buell, Willingham, Allyn, Hafner, Smith (bib16) 2004 Michael (bib1) 1999 Chin, Sawamura, Shiba (bib6) 2003; 82 Klute, Berge, Orendurff, Williams, Czerniecki (bib18) 2006; 87 Buell, Willingham, Allyn, Hafner, Smith (bib15) 2004 English, Hubbard, McElroy (bib19) 1995; 32 Datta, Heller, Howitt (bib8) 2005; 19 Zahedi (bib2) 1993 Datta, Howitt (bib3) 1998; 22 Taylor, Clark, Offord, Baxter (bib4) 1996; 20 Buckley, Spence, Solomonidis (bib5) 1997; 78 Legro, Reiber, Smith, del Aguila, Larsen, Boone (bib17) 1998; 79 Chin, Machida, Sawamura (bib12) 2006; 30 Perry, Burnfield, Newsam, Conley (bib10) 2004; 85 Gailey, Roach, Applegate (bib14) 2002; 83 Heller, Datta, Howitt (bib9) 2000; 14 Schmalz, Blumentritt, Jarasch (bib13) 2002; 7 Perry (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib10) 2004; 85 Zahedi (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib2) 1993 Taylor (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib4) 1996; 20 Datta (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib8) 2005; 19 Klute (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib18) 2006; 87 Legro (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib17) 1998; 79 Buell (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib15) 2004 Johansson (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib11) 2005; 84 Gailey (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib14) 2002; 83 English (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib19) 1995; 32 Chin (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib6) 2003; 82 Buell (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib16) 2004 Datta (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib3) 1998; 22 Chin (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib12) 2006; 30 Schmalz (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib13) 2002; 7 Chin (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib7) 2005; 87 Michael (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib1) 1999 Heller (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib9) 2000; 14 Buckley (10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib5) 1997; 78 Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Apr;88(4):544 |
| References_xml | – volume: 87 start-page: 117 year: 2005 end-page: 119 ident: bib7 article-title: Energy expenditure during walking in amputees after disarticulation of the hip publication-title: J Bone Joint Surg Br – year: 1993 ident: bib2 publication-title: The results of the field trial of the Endolite Intelligent Prosthesis – volume: 14 start-page: 518 year: 2000 end-page: 522 ident: bib9 article-title: A pilot study comparing the cognitive demand of walking for transfemoral amputees using the Intelligent Prosthesis with that using conventionally damped knees publication-title: Clin Rehabil – volume: 20 start-page: 116 year: 1996 end-page: 121 ident: bib4 article-title: A comparison of energy expenditure by a high level trans-femoral amputee using the Intelligent Prosthesis and conventionally damped prosthetic limbs publication-title: Prosthet Orthot Int – volume: 7 start-page: 586 year: 2002 end-page: 592 ident: bib13 article-title: [A comparison of different prosthetic knee joints during step over step stair descent] publication-title: Orthop Technik – volume: 78 start-page: 330 year: 1997 end-page: 333 ident: bib5 article-title: Energy cost of walking: comparison of “intelligent prosthesis” with conventional mechanism publication-title: Arch Phys Med Rehabil – volume: 79 start-page: 931 year: 1998 end-page: 938 ident: bib17 article-title: Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life publication-title: Arch Phys Med Rehabil – start-page: 53 year: 2004 ident: bib16 publication-title: Evaluation of gait style for hill descent for lower limb amputees – volume: 84 start-page: 563 year: 2005 end-page: 575 ident: bib11 article-title: A clinical comparison of variable-damping and mechanically passive prosthetic knee devices publication-title: Am J Phys Med Rehabil – volume: 85 start-page: 1711 year: 2004 end-page: 1717 ident: bib10 article-title: Energy expenditure and gait characteristics of a bilateral amputee walking with C-leg prostheses compared with stubby and conventional articulating prostheses publication-title: Arch Phys Med Rehabil – volume: 22 start-page: 129 year: 1998 end-page: 135 ident: bib3 article-title: Conventional versus microchip controlled pneumatic swing phase control for trans-femoral amputees: user’s verdict publication-title: Prosthet Orthot Int – start-page: 39 year: 1999 end-page: 47 ident: bib1 article-title: Modern prosthetic knee mechanisms publication-title: Clin Orthop Relat Res – volume: 87 start-page: 717 year: 2006 end-page: 722 ident: bib18 article-title: Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees publication-title: Arch Phys Med Rehabil – volume: 32 start-page: 32 year: 1995 end-page: 35 ident: bib19 article-title: Establishment of consistent gait after fitting of new components publication-title: J Rehabil Res Dev – volume: 19 start-page: 398 year: 2005 end-page: 403 ident: bib8 article-title: A comparative evaluation of oxygen consumption and gait pattern in amputees using Intelligent Prostheses and conventionally damped knee swing-phase control publication-title: Clin Rehabil – volume: 30 start-page: 73 year: 2006 end-page: 80 ident: bib12 article-title: Comparison of different microprocessor controlled knee joints on the energy consumption during walking in trans-femoral amputees: Intelligent Knee Prosthesis (IP) versus C-Leg publication-title: Prosthet Orthot Int – volume: 83 start-page: 613 year: 2002 end-page: 627 ident: bib14 article-title: The Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP): an instrument designed to assess determinants of the lower limb amputee’s ability to ambulate publication-title: Arch Phys Med Rehabil – volume: 82 start-page: 447 year: 2003 end-page: 451 ident: bib6 article-title: Effect of an Intelligent Prosthesis (IP) on the walking ability of young transfemoral amputees: comparison of IP users with able-bodied people publication-title: Am J Phys Med Rehabil – start-page: 367 year: 2004 ident: bib15 publication-title: Evaluation of gait style to ascend and descend stairs for lower limb amputees – volume: 30 start-page: 73 year: 2006 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib12 article-title: Comparison of different microprocessor controlled knee joints on the energy consumption during walking in trans-femoral amputees: Intelligent Knee Prosthesis (IP) versus C-Leg publication-title: Prosthet Orthot Int doi: 10.1080/03093640500533414 – volume: 32 start-page: 32 year: 1995 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib19 article-title: Establishment of consistent gait after fitting of new components publication-title: J Rehabil Res Dev – volume: 20 start-page: 116 year: 1996 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib4 article-title: A comparison of energy expenditure by a high level trans-femoral amputee using the Intelligent Prosthesis and conventionally damped prosthetic limbs publication-title: Prosthet Orthot Int doi: 10.3109/03093649609164428 – volume: 84 start-page: 563 year: 2005 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib11 article-title: A clinical comparison of variable-damping and mechanically passive prosthetic knee devices publication-title: Am J Phys Med Rehabil doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000174665.74933.0b – volume: 85 start-page: 1711 year: 2004 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib10 article-title: Energy expenditure and gait characteristics of a bilateral amputee walking with C-leg prostheses compared with stubby and conventional articulating prostheses publication-title: Arch Phys Med Rehabil doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.02.028 – start-page: 39 issue: 361 year: 1999 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib1 article-title: Modern prosthetic knee mechanisms publication-title: Clin Orthop Relat Res doi: 10.1097/00003086-199904000-00006 – volume: 7 start-page: 586 year: 2002 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib13 article-title: [A comparison of different prosthetic knee joints during step over step stair descent] publication-title: Orthop Technik – volume: 87 start-page: 717 year: 2006 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib18 article-title: Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees publication-title: Arch Phys Med Rehabil doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.02.007 – volume: 22 start-page: 129 year: 1998 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib3 article-title: Conventional versus microchip controlled pneumatic swing phase control for trans-femoral amputees: user’s verdict publication-title: Prosthet Orthot Int doi: 10.3109/03093649809164474 – volume: 79 start-page: 931 year: 1998 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib17 article-title: Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life publication-title: Arch Phys Med Rehabil doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90090-9 – year: 1993 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib2 – start-page: 367 year: 2004 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib15 – volume: 19 start-page: 398 year: 2005 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib8 article-title: A comparative evaluation of oxygen consumption and gait pattern in amputees using Intelligent Prostheses and conventionally damped knee swing-phase control publication-title: Clin Rehabil doi: 10.1191/0269215505cr805oa – volume: 87 start-page: 117 year: 2005 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib7 article-title: Energy expenditure during walking in amputees after disarticulation of the hip publication-title: J Bone Joint Surg Br doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.87B1.14617 – volume: 82 start-page: 447 year: 2003 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib6 article-title: Effect of an Intelligent Prosthesis (IP) on the walking ability of young transfemoral amputees: comparison of IP users with able-bodied people publication-title: Am J Phys Med Rehabil doi: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000069191.20125.38 – volume: 14 start-page: 518 year: 2000 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib9 article-title: A pilot study comparing the cognitive demand of walking for transfemoral amputees using the Intelligent Prosthesis with that using conventionally damped knees publication-title: Clin Rehabil doi: 10.1191/0269215500cr345oa – volume: 83 start-page: 613 year: 2002 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib14 article-title: The Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP): an instrument designed to assess determinants of the lower limb amputee’s ability to ambulate publication-title: Arch Phys Med Rehabil doi: 10.1053/ampr.2002.32309 – start-page: 53 year: 2004 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib16 – volume: 78 start-page: 330 year: 1997 ident: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030_bib5 article-title: Energy cost of walking: comparison of “intelligent prosthesis” with conventional mechanism publication-title: Arch Phys Med Rehabil doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(97)90044-7 – reference: - Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Apr;88(4):544 |
| SSID | ssj0006531 |
| Score | 2.3568254 |
| Snippet | Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical... Abstract Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from... To evaluate differences in function, performance, and preference between mechanical and microprocessor prosthetic knee control technologies. A-B-A-B reversal... To evaluate differences in function, performance, and preference between mechanical and microprocessor prosthetic knee control technologies.OBJECTIVETo... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed pascalfrancis crossref elsevier |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 207 |
| SubjectTerms | Activities of Daily Living Adult Aged Amputees Amputees - rehabilitation Artificial Limbs Biological and medical sciences Cognition - physiology Female Humans Knee Knee Prosthesis Male Medical sciences Microcomputers Middle Aged Miscellaneous Orthopedic surgery Patient Satisfaction Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Prosthesis Design Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects) Rehabilitation Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases Surveys and Questionnaires Walking - physiology |
| Title | Evaluation of Function, Performance, and Preference as Transfemoral Amputees Transition From Mechanical to Microprocessor Control of the Prosthetic Knee |
| URI | https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/1-s2.0-S0003999306014808 https://www.clinicalkey.es/playcontent/1-s2.0-S0003999306014808 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17270519 https://www.proquest.com/docview/68967670 |
| Volume | 88 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVLSH databaseName: Elsevier Journals customDbUrl: mediaType: online eissn: 1532-821X dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0006531 issn: 0003-9993 databaseCode: AKRWK dateStart: 19930501 isFulltext: true providerName: Library Specific Holdings |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Zb9NAEF6FVEJIiKNc4Sj7wFvqyrfXjylKqWgaIUhEebK87lpQSGLFzgP8En4dv4UZ72G79ABerGjlXSeZzzvHfjNDyCsBWsHx_NSyRRxYfhaHVsxjZp3aMMAzDzyyutrnNDyc-29PgpNe71eLtbSp-F7248K8kv-RKoyBXDFL9h8kaxaFAfgM8oUrSBiufyXjsSnVjTYfqqiaqgH_WtHkA2h-ZmE6imBvmao2WJFmi8UC6s4OQo1-kfRDzDtZCEwMruUINuoCyXuFzCxYrQ3LXbEMCswf-Yw5kcOvS9FhGLXL2xYaGPpUXzLcOwXDDdZGB1PJ1Nhf40ZkYtp1DGL65nB0rHO706GJYu_Px5OJPJPCU4kmDjyaTD5NNYVErL_rBXXQI9I8aR2JU2ZDZ2f3LDB2vfbOzlgLwW57m5addpXGd2X26B_KRMY1zvbSYrGWx1bIA1THSJ3K3ec0quE5YmY6Wsg3yJYLWsfuk63R0fuPR8ZWCAPP9HTEb6_SuiQD8fxzLzOdbhdpCXLLZSeWy12l2mSa3SN3lK9DRxK490lPLLfJzWMl921y953CAp3J2hYPyM8G0nSVUw3pXdoC9C4FxNAGzjQtaRvOVMOZNnCmCGfawJlWK9qFM1VwxscCOmgDZ4pwfkjmB-PZ60NLNQ-xsiAIK4sHUZa6oH3QaWaBz4PYyWyWZizMQxaf-g7nEdiyDo-F4-ce3J3bHLxxN-MRuDHeI9JfrpbiCaGOSKMQRrzAAe8hzGI83I5zBs4188ABGRBHyyXJ1IuCDV6-JZpCeZagLLHla4hjIMsBGZo5hawrc-XdnhZ3ojOmQccngNQrZ0UXzRKl2sLKxElKN7GTD3WKPsAPizP5zGYDEpiZyhKXFva1T9zpYLH5aepFGJCXGpwJ6DE8nEyXYrUpE5AJ1o6EJR5LzDZzwcVCR_PpdYs_I7eaveI56VfrjXgBLkPFd9R79xuACRxn |
| linkProvider | Library Specific Holdings |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation+of+function%2C+performance%2C+and+preference+as+transfemoral+amputees+transition+from+mechanical+to+microprocessor+control+of+the+prosthetic+knee&rft.jtitle=Archives+of+physical+medicine+and+rehabilitation&rft.au=HAFNER%2C+Brian+J&rft.au=WILLINGHAM%2C+Laura+L&rft.au=BUELL%2C+Noelle+C&rft.au=ALLYN%2C+Katheryn+J&rft.date=2007-02-01&rft.pub=Elsevier&rft.issn=0003-9993&rft.volume=88&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=207&rft.epage=217&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.apmr.2006.10.030&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=18521932 |
| thumbnail_m | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/image/custom?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.clinicalkey.com%2Fck-thumbnails%2F00039993%2FS0003999306X02526%2Fcov150h.gif |