Yavuz SAGLAMA, Baris GULENCB, Fevzi BİRİSİKC, Ali ERSEND, Ebru YALCİNKAYAE YILMAZ, Onder YAZİCİOGLUD, Received February FEBRUARY, Accepted October OCTOBER

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

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the patient demographics, etiology of limb loss as well asreporting SF-36 scores for microprocessor prosthesis users in Turkish population.Methods: We reviewed 72 patients (61 male and 11 female; mean age: 37.7± 10.7) with uni-lateral,above knee amputation and a history of regular and microprocessor prosthesis use. All patients werecalled back for a last follow-up and they were asked toŞll a self-administered general health statusquestionnaire (SF-36).Results: According to the SF-36 results; physical component score (PCS) score was 46± 7.3 and mentalcomponents summary (MCS) score was 46.5± 9.1. These scores have statistical similarity with Turkishhealthy controls, except SF (social functioning) sub-dimension. PCS score for women microprocessorusers were signiŞcantly lower than men (43.3 vs. 48.7, p ¼ 0.03), but MCS scores were similar in betweengenders (46 vs. 48.2, p¼ 0.13). Conventional prostheses usage time was positively correlated withphysical function (PF) scores (r¼ 0.322, p ¼ 0.010). Microprocessor prosthesis usage time was negativelycorrelated with role limitations due to emotional problem (RE) scores (r¼ 0,313, p ¼ 0.009).Conclusion: The quality of life surveys were showed that the loss of an extremity have higher physicaland psychological impact on women's physical scores. Overall, SF-36 results were similar in microprocessor using amputee's and Turkish normal controls.Level of evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

___

1. 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(1):51e61.

2. Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Jarasch R. Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: the influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components. Gait Posture. 2002;16(3):255e263.

3. OttoBock. In: Compact Microprocessor Knee Reference Guide. Otto Bock HealthCare; 2013. 30COM.10032013.

4. Bellmann M, Schmalz T, Blumentritt S. Comparative biomechanical analysis of current microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(4):644e652.

5. Kaufman KR, Levine JA, Brey RH, et al. Gait and balance of transfemoral amputees using passive mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Gait Posture. 2007;26(4):489e493.

6. Segal AD, Orendurff MS, Klute GK, et al. Kinematic and kinetic comparisons of transfemoral amputee gait using C-Leg and Mauch SNS prosthetic knees. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43(7):857e870.

7. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Bongiorni DR, Sutton BS, Groer S, Kaufman KR. Safety, energy efficiency, and cost efficacy of the C-Leg for transfemoral amputees: a review of the literature. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010;34(4):362e377.

8. 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: 80e84.

9. Celik D, Ozge C. Short Form Health Survey version-2.0 Turkish (SF-36v2) is an efficient outcome parameter in musculoskeletal research. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50(5):558e561.

10. Demiral Y, Ergor G, Unal B, et al. Normative data and discriminative properties of short form 36 (SF-36) in Turkish urban population. BMC Public Health. 2006;6:247.

11. Kocyigit H, A.O., Fisek G, Olmez N, Memis A. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of Short form 36: a study of a patients with romatoid disorder. J Drug Ther. 1999;12:102e106.

12. Pinar R. Reliability and construct validity of the SF-36 in Turkish cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(1):259e264.

13. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(1):13e35.

14. Bunce DJ, Breakey J. The impact of C-Leg on the physical and psychological adjustment to transfemoral amputation. JPO. 2007;19:7e14.

15. Strecker W, Keppler P, Gebhard F, Kinzl L. Length and torsion of the lower limb. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 1997;79(6):1019e1023.

16. Chin T, Sawamura S, Shiba R, Oyabu H, Nagakura Y, Nakagawa A. Energy expenditure during walking in amputees after disarticulation of the hip. A microprocessor-controlled swing-phase control knee versus a mechanicalcontrolled stance-phase control knee. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2005;87(1):117e119.

17. Berry D. Microprocessor technologies need proof of cost-effectiveness. Biomechanics. 2004:53e58.

18. Waters RL, Mulroy S. The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Gait Posture. 1999;9(3):207e231.