Ekin İlke ŞEN, Tuğba AYDIN, Derya BUĞDAYCI, Nur KESİKTAŞ

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

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

___

1. Van der Linde H, Hofstad CJ, Geurts AC, et al. A systematic literature review of the effect of different prosthetic components on human functioning with a lower-limb prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004; 41: 555-70. [Crossref]

2. Theeven PJ, Hemmen B, Brink PR, Smeets RJEM, Seelen HAM. Measures and procedures utilized to determine the added value of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints: A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 333. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-333 [Crossref]

3. Sawers AB, Hafner BJ. Outcomes associated with the use of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees among individuals with unilateral transfemoral limb loss: A systematic review. J Rehabil Res Dev 2013; 50: 273-314. [Crossref]

4. Vrieling AH, van Keeken HG, Schoppen T, et al. Uphill and downhill walking in unilateral lower limb amputees. Gait Posture 2008; 28: 235-42. [Crossref]

5. Vrieling AH, van Keeken HG, Schoppen T, et al. Obstacle crossing in lower limb amputees. Gait Posture 2007; 26: 587-94. [Crossref]

6. Genin JJ, Bastien GJ, Franck B, et al. Effect of speed on the energy cost of walking in unilateral traumatic lower limb amputees. Eur J Appl Physiol 2008; 103: 655-63. [Crossref]

7. Miller WC, Speechley M, Deathe B. The prevalence and risk factors of falling and fear of falling among lower extremity amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 1031-7. [Crossref]

8. Seymour R, Engbretson B, Kott K, et al. 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. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007; 31: 51-61. [Crossref]

9. Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, et al. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of prosthetic knee. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 207-17. [Crossref]

10. Stevens PM, Wurdeman SR. Prosthetic knee selection for individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation: A clinical practice guideline. J Prosthet Orthot 2019; 31: 2-8. [Crossref]

11. Möller S, Hagberg K, Samulesson K, et al. Perceived self-efficacy and specific self-reported outcomes in persons with lower-limb amputation using a non-microprocessor-controlled versus a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2018; 13: 220-5. [Crossref]

12. Devlin M, Pauley T, Head K, Garfinkel S. Houghton Scale of prosthetic use in people with lower-extremity amputations: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 1339-44. [Crossref]

13. Miller WC, Deathe AB, Speechley M. Lower extremity prosthetic mobility: a comparison of 3 self-report scales. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 84: 1432-40. [Crossref]

14. Grise MC, Gauthier-Gagnon C, Martineau GG. Prosthetic profile of people with lower extremity amputation: conception and design of a follow-up questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74: 862-70. [Crossref]

15. Franchignoni F, Orlandini D, Ferriero G, Moscato TA. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the locomotor capabilities index in adults with lower-limb amputation undergoing prosthetic training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 743-8. [Crossref]

16. Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Ferriero G, Muñoz S, Orlandini D, Amoresano A. Rasch analysis of the Locomotor Capabilities Index-5 in people with lower limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007; 31: 394-404. [Crossref]

17. Breakey JW. Body Image: The lower-limb amputee. J Prosthet Orthot 1997; 9: 58-66. [Crossref]

18. Bumin G, Bayramlar K, Yakut Y, Yavuz Yakut Sener G. Crosscultural adaptation and reliability of the Turkish version of Amputee Body Image Scale (ABIS). J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2009; 22: 11-6. [Crossref]

19. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine 2000; 25: 3130-9. [Crossref]

20. Çelik D, Çoban Ö. Short Form Health Survey version-2.0 Turkish (SF-36v2) is an efficient outcome parameter in musculoskeletal research. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2016; 50: 558-61. [Crossref]

21. Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbaugh J. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1961; 4: 561-71. [Crossref]

22. Hisli N. The validity and reliability of Beck Depression Inventory in university students. Turk J Psychol 1989: 3-13.

23. Kaufman KR, Levine JA, Brey RH, et al. Energy expenditure and activity of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89: 1380-5. [Crossref]

24. Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ, Hubbard SL. Comparison of nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008; 45: 1-14. [Crossref]

25. Seelen H, Hemmen B, Schmeets AJ, Ament AJHA, Evers SMAA. Cost and consequences of a prosthesis with an electronically stance and swing phase controlled knee joint. Technol Disabil 2009; 21: 25-34. [Crossref]

26. Cao W, Yu H, Zhao W, Meng Q, Chen W. The comparison of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee under different walking speeds: A randomized cross-over trial. Technol Health Care 2018; 26: 581-92. [Crossref]

27. Kaufman KR, Frittoli S, Frigo CA. Gait asymmetry of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Clin Biomech 2012; 27: 460-5. [Crossref]

28. Aldridge Whitehead JM, Wolf EJ, Scoville CR, Wilken JM. Does a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee affect stair ascent strategies in persons with transfemoral amputation? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 3093-101. [Crossref]

29. Fuenzalida Squella SA, Kannenberg A, Brandão Benetti Â. Enhancement of a prosthetic knee with a microprocessor-controlled gait phase switch reduces falls and improves balance confidence and gait speed in community ambulators with unilateral transfemoral amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int 2018; 42: 228-35. [Crossref]

30. Hagberg K, Brånemark R. Consequences of non-vascular trans-femoral amputation: a survey of quality of life, prosthetic use and problems. Prosthet Orthot Int 2001; 25: 186-94.

31. Holzer LA, Sevelda F, Fraberger G, Bluder O, Kickinger W, Holzer G. Body image and self-esteem in lower-limb amputees. PLoS One 2014; 9: e92943. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092943. [Crossref]

32. Samuelsson KA, Töytäri O, Salminen AL, et al. Effects of lower limb prosthesis on activity, participation, and quality of life: Asystematic review. Prosthet Orthot Int 2012; 36: 145-58. [Crossref]

33. Sağlam Y, Gülenç B, Birişik F, Erşen A, Yılmaz Yalçınkaya E, Yazıcoğlu Ö. The quality of life analysis of knee prosthesis with complete microprocessor control in trans-femoral amputees. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2017; 51: 466-9. [Crossref]

34. Asano M, Rushton P, Miller WC, Deathe BA. Predictors of quality of life among individuals who have a lower limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int 2008; 32: 231-43. [Crossref]

35. Horgan O, MacLachlan M. Psychosocial adjustment to lower-limb amputation: A review. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26: 837-50. [Crossref]

36. Swanson E, Stube J, Edman P. Function and body image levels in individuals with transfemoral amputations using the C-Leg. J Prosthet Orthot Int 2005; 17: 80-4. [Crossref]

37. Bunce DJ, Breakey JW. The impact of C-Leg on the physical and psychological adjustment to transfemoral amputation. J Prosthet Orthot 2007; 19: 7-14. [Crossref]

38. Highsmith MJ, Klenow TD, Kahle JT, et al. Effects of the Genium microprocessor knee system on knee moment symmetry during hill walking. Technol Innov 2016; 18: 151-7. [Crossref]

39. Lura DJ, Wernke MM, Carey SL, Kahle JT, Miro RM, Highsmith MJ. Differences in knee flexion between the Genium and C-Leg microprocessor knees while walking on level ground and ramps. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2015; 30: 175-81. [Crossref]