Using a microprocessor knee (C-Leg) with appropriate foot transitioned individuals with dysvascular transfemoral amputations to higher performance levels: a longitudinal randomized clinical trial

Chandrasekaran Jayaraman, Chaithanya K Mummidisetty, Mark V Albert, Robert Lipschutz, Shenan Hoppe-Ludwig, Gayatri Mathur, Arun Jayaraman, Chandrasekaran Jayaraman, Chaithanya K Mummidisetty, Mark V Albert, Robert Lipschutz, Shenan Hoppe-Ludwig, Gayatri Mathur, Arun Jayaraman

Abstract

Background: Individuals with transfemoral amputations who are considered to be limited community ambulators are classified as Medicare functional classification (MFCL) level K2. These individuals are usually prescribed a non-microprocessor controlled knee (NMPK) with an appropriate foot for simple walking functions. However, existing research suggests that these individuals can benefit from using a microprocessor controlled knee (MPK) and appropriate foot for their ambulation, but cannot obtain one due to insurance policy restrictions. With a steady increase in older adults with amputations due to vascular conditions, it is critical to evaluate whether advanced prostheses can provide better safety and performance capabilities to maintain and improve quality of life in individuals who are predominantly designated MFCL level K2. To decipher this we conducted a 13 month longitudinal clinical trial to determine the benefits of using a C-Leg and 1M10 foot in individuals at K2 level with transfemoral amputation due to vascular disease. This longitudinal clinical trial incorporated recommendations prescribed by the lower limb prosthesis workgroup to design a study that can add evidence to improve reimbursement policy through clinical outcomes using an MPK in K2 level individuals with transfemoral amputation who were using an NMPK for everyday use.

Methods: Ten individuals (mean age: 63 ± 9 years) with unilateral transfemoral amputation due to vascular conditions designated as MFCL K2 participated in this longitudinal crossover randomized clinical trial. Baseline outcomes were collected with their current prosthesis. Participants were then randomized to one of two groups, either an intervention with the MPK with a standardized 1M10 foot or their predicate NMPK with a standardized 1M10 foot. On completion of the first intervention, participants crossed over to the next group to complete the study. Each intervention lasted for 6 months (3 months of acclimation and 3 months of take-home trial to monitor home use). At the end of each intervention, clinical outcomes and self-reported outcomes were collected to compare with their baseline performance. A generalized linear model ANOVA was used to compare the performance of each intervention with respect to their own baseline.

Results: Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements were observed in gait performance, safety, and participant-reported measures when using the MPK C-Leg + 1M10 foot. Most participants were able to achieve higher clinical scores in gait speed, balance, self-reported mobility, and fall safety, while using the MPK + 1M10 combination. The improvement in scores were within range of scores achieved by individuals with K3 functional level as reported in previous studies.

Conclusions: Individuals with transfemoral amputation from dysvascular conditions designated MFCL level K2 benefited from using an MPK + appropriate foot. The inference and evidence from this longitudinal clinical trial will add to the knowledgebase related to reimbursement policy-making. Trial registration This study is registered on clinical trials.gov with the study title "Functional outcomes in dysvascular transfemoral amputees" and the associated ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01537211. The trial was retroactively registered on February 7, 2012 after the first participant was enrolled.

Keywords: C-Leg; Dysvascular; Mechanical and microprocessor prosthetic knee; Medicare functional classification level; Transfemoral amputations.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Clinical trial design schematic and outcome assessment time points (T1, T2, and T3)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Performance improvement of the group’s gait speed (10MWT) from MFCL K2 to MFCL K3 as a result of the longitudinal intervention. The lines indicating K2 and K3 in the plot are established benchmark from literature
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Performance improvement of the group’s Berg balance scores from MFCL K2 to MFCL K3 as a result of the longitudinal intervention
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Performance improvement of the group’s safety (MFES) and self-reported mobility scores from MFCL K2 to MFCL K3 as a result of the longitudinal intervention

References

    1. Limb Loss Task Force/Amputee Coalition of America, Roadmap for Improving Participant-Centered Outcomes Research and Advocacy. Knoxville: ACA; 2019.
    1. Ziegler-Graham K, et al. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(3):422–429. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005.
    1. Robbins JM, et al. Mortality rates and diabetic foot ulcers: is it time to communicate mortality risk to participants with diabetic foot ulceration? J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2008;98(6):489–493. doi: 10.7547/0980489.
    1. Ustun TB, et al. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: a new tool for understanding disability and health. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(11–12):565–571. doi: 10.1080/0963828031000137063.
    1. Amtmann D, et al. Health-related profiles of people with lower limb loss. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(8):1474–1483. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.03.024.
    1. Highsmith MJ, et al. Low back pain in persons with lower extremity amputation: a systematic review of the literature. Spine J. 2019;19(3):552–563. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.08.011.
    1. Windrich M, et al. Active lower limb prosthetics: a systematic review of design issues and solutions. Biomed Eng Online. 2016;15(Suppl 3):140. doi: 10.1186/s12938-016-0284-9.
    1. Chumacero E, et al. Advances in powered ankle-foot prostheses. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2018;46(2):93–108. doi: 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.2018025933.
    1. Versluys R, et al. Prosthetic feet: state-of-the-art review and the importance of mimicking human ankle-foot biomechanics. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4(2):65–75. doi: 10.1080/17483100802715092.
    1. Stevens PM, Rheinstein J, Wurdeman SR. Prosthetic foot selection for individuals with lower-limb amputation: a clinical practice guideline. J Prosthet Orthot. 2018;30(4):175–180. doi: 10.1097/JPO.0000000000000181.
    1. Taylor MB, et al. A comparison of energy expenditure by a high level trans-femoral amputee using the Intelligent Prosthesis and conventionally damped prosthetic limbs. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1996;20:116–121. doi: 10.3109/03093649609164428.
    1. Berry D. Microprocessor prosthetic knees. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2006;17(1):91–113. doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2005.10.006.
    1. Jayaraman C, et al. Impact of powered knee-ankle prosthesis on low back muscle mechanics in transfemoral amputees: a case series. Front Neurosci. 2018;12:134. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00134.
    1. Hafner BJ, Smith DG. Differences in function and safety between Medicare Functional Classification Level-2 and -3 transfemoral amputees and influence of prosthetic knee joint control. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(3):417–433. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2008.01.0007.
    1. Chin T, et al. Comparison of different microprocessor controlled knee joints on the energy consumption during walking in trans-femoral amputees: intelligent knee prosthesis (IP) versus C-leg. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2006;30(1):73–80. doi: 10.1080/03093640500533414.
    1. Datta D, Heller B, Howitt J. A comparative evaluation of oxygen consumption and gait pattern in amputees using Intelligent Prostheses and conventionally damped knee swing-phase control. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(4):398–403. doi: 10.1191/0269215505cr805oa.
    1. US Health Care Financing Administration. In: Health and Human Services, editor. Healthcare common procedure coding system. Washington: D.U.H.C.F.A.; 2001.
    1. Kannenberg A, Zacharias B, Probsting E. Benefits of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees to limited community ambulators: systematic review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(10):1469–1496. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2014.05.0118.
    1. Kaufman KR, Bernhardt KA, Symms K. Functional assessment and satisfaction of transfemoral amputees with low mobility (FASTK2): a clinical trial of microprocessor-controlled vs. non-microprocessor-controlled knees. Clin Biomech. 2018;58:116–122. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.07.012.
    1. Lower Limb Prosthetic Workgroup Consensus Document. 2017.
    1. Gailey R. Predictive outcome measures versus functional outcome measures in the lower limb amputee. J Prosthet Orthot. 2006;18(6 Proceedings):51–60. doi: 10.1097/00008526-200601001-00006.
    1. Major MJ, Fatone S, Roth EJ. Validity and reliability of the Berg Balance Scale for community-dwelling persons with lower-limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(11):2194–2202. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.07.002.
    1. Kark L, Simmons A. Patient satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: the role of gait deviation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(2):225–233. doi: 10.1177/0309364611406169.
    1. Sions JM, et al. Differences in physical performance measures among patients with unilateral lower-limb amputations classified as functional level K3 versus K4. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(7):1333–1341. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.12.033.
    1. Balk EM, et al. Lower limb prostheses: measurement instruments, comparison of component effects by subgroups, and long-term outcomes. Comparative effectiveness review, No. 213. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018.
    1. Sawers A, Hafner BJ. Using clinical balance tests to assess fall risk among established unilateral lower limb prosthesis users: cutoff scores and associated validity indices. PM&R. 2020;12(1):16–25. doi: 10.1002/pmrj.12160.
    1. Burnfield JM, et al. Impact of stance phase microprocessor-controlled knee prosthesis on ramp negotiation and community walking function in K2 level transfemoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012;36(1):95–104. doi: 10.1177/0309364611431611.
    1. Hill KD, et al. Fear of falling revisited. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(10):1025–1029. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90063-5.
    1. Gailey RS, et al. The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(5):613–627. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.32309.
    1. Resnik L, Borgia M. Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error. Phys Ther. 2011;91(4):555–565. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100287.
    1. Hofstad C, et al. Prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot mechanisms after lower limb amputation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;1:Cd003978.
    1. Batten HR, et al. Gait speed as an indicator of prosthetic walking potential following lower limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019;43(2):196–203. doi: 10.1177/0309364618792723.
    1. Lansade C, et al. Mobility and satisfaction with a microprocessor-controlled knee in moderately active amputees: a multi-centric randomized crossover trial. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;61(5):278–285. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2018.04.003.
    1. Hasenoehrl T, et al. Safety and function of a prototype microprocessor-controlled knee prosthesis for low active transfemoral amputees switching from a mechanic knee prosthesis: a pilot study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(2):157–165. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2017.1300344.
    1. Halsne EG, Waddingham MG, Hafner BJ. Long-term activity in and among persons with transfemoral amputation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(4):515–530. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2012.04.0066.
    1. Orendurff MS, et al. Gait efficiency using the C-Leg. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43(2):239–246. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2005.06.0095.
    1. Segal AD, 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):857–870. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2005.09.0147.
    1. Mundell BF, et al. The risk of major cardiovascular events for adults with transfemoral amputation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018;15(Suppl 1):58. doi: 10.1186/s12984-018-0400-0.
    1. Barr S, Howe TE. Prosthetic rehabilitation for older dysvascular people following a unilateral transfemoral amputation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;10(10):CD005260.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe