title: Functional performance differences between the Genium and C-Leg prosthetic knees and intact knees.
abstract: Microprocessor prosthetic knees (MPKs) have advanced technologically, offering new features to decrease impairment and activity limitations for persons with transfemoral amputation (TFA). The Genium knee is functionally untested, and functional differences between it and intact knees are unknown. This study sought to determine whether Genium use improves functional performance compared with the C-Leg. A randomized experimental crossover design was used, with a cross-section of five nonamputee controls for comparison to normal. Twenty community-ambulating persons with TFA were trained and tested for accommodation with study components. All subjects (n = 25) were assessed using the Continuous-Scale Physical Functional Performance-10 (CS-PFP10) assessment. Subjects with TFA used both MPK systems. Genium use improved upper-body flexibility, balance, and endurance domain scores (7.0%-8.4%, p </= 0.05) compared with the C-Leg. Only in the endurance domain did Genium users score significantly lower than nonamputees (22.4%, p = 0.05). Comparing the C-Leg with nonamputees, CS-PFP10 total (2.0%-24.4%, p = 0.03) and all domains except upper-body strength were lower than nonamputees (-13.4% to -28.9%, p </= 0.05). Nonetheless, regardless of knee condition, subjects with TFAs did not equal or surpass nonamputees in any functional domain, suggesting room for improvements in TFA functional performance.
authors.affiliation: School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.|Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Extremity Trauma & Amputation Center of Excellence, Washington DC.
authors.forename: M Jason
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Highsmith
authors.affiliation: School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
authors.forename: Jason T
authors.initials: JT
authors.lastname: Kahle
authors.affiliation: School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
authors.forename: Rebecca M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Miro
authors.affiliation: Department of Kinesiology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
authors.forename: M Elaine
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Cress
authors.affiliation: Department of Bioengineering and Software Engineering, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, FL.
authors.forename: Derek J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Lura
authors.affiliation: School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
authors.forename: William S
authors.initials: WS
authors.lastname: Quillen
authors.affiliation: Mechanical Engineering Department, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
authors.forename: Stephanie L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Carey
authors.affiliation: Mechanical Engineering Department, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
authors.forename: Rajiv V
authors.initials: RV
authors.lastname: Dubey
authors.affiliation: University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, St. Augustine, FL.
authors.forename: Larry J
authors.initials: LJ
authors.lastname: Mengelkoch
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000671:Amputation, Surgical; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007717:Knee; D007719:Knee Joint; D007720:Knee Prosthesis; D008297:Male; D008838:Microcomputers; D008875:Middle Aged; D011474:Prosthesis Design
keywords: activities of daily living; balance; endurance; flexibility; lower-limb amputation; microprocessor prosthetic knee; physical assessment; physical therapy; rehabilitation; strength