Influence of a user-adaptive prosthetic knee on quality of life, balance confidence, and measures of mobility: a randomised cross-over trial
Influence of a user-adaptive prosthetic knee on quality of life, balance confidence, and measures of mobility: a randomised cross-over trial
复制标题
用户自适应假肢膝关节对生活质量、平衡信心和活动能力的影响：一项随机交叉试验
作者：
E. Prinsen;M. Nederhand;J. Olsman;J. Rietman
目的：研究从非微处理器控制的膝关节系统过渡到Rheo Knee® II对生活质量、平衡信心和活动度测量的影响。设计：随机交叉试验。单位：康复中心的研究部门。受试者：经股动脉截肢或膝关节离断患者（n=10）。干预：参与者使用自己的非微处理器控制膝关节和Rheo Knee® II进行评估。在两种膝关节条件下安装了带EVO足的低剖面Vari-Flex，随后进行了8周的适应。膝关节试验的顺序是随机的。主要措施：假肢评估问卷及附录、活动特定平衡信心量表、计时“上&走”测试、计时上下楼梯测试、坡道评估指数、楼梯评估指数、标准化步行障碍课程和单腿平衡测试。结果如下：与非微处理器控制的人工膝关节相比，Rheo Knee® II在假体评价问卷的残肢健康子量表上的得分显著更高（中位数[四分位距]分别为86.67 [62.21-93.08]和68.71 [46.15-94.83]; P=0.047）此外，与非微处理器控制的假肢膝关节相比，使用Rheo Knee® II行走时，参与者需要显著更多的步数来完成障碍训练（中位数[四分位距]分别为23.50 [19.92-26.25]和22.17 [19.50-25.75]; P=0.041）。在其他结局指标上，没有发现显著差异。结论：向Rheo Knee® II过渡对所研究的结局指标几乎没有影响。
Objective: To study the influence of a transition from a non-microprocessor controlled to the Rheo Knee® II on quality of life, balance confidence and measures of mobility. Design: Randomised crossover trial. Setting: Research department of a rehabilitation centre. Subjects: Persons with a transfemoral amputation or knee disarticulation (n=10). Interventions: Participants were assessed with their own non-microprocessor controlled knee and with the Rheo Knee® II. The low-profile Vari-Flex with EVO foot was installed in both knee conditions, followed by eight weeks of acclimatisation. The order in which knees were tested was randomised. Main measures: Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire with addendum, Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, Timed “up & go” test, Timed up and down stairs test, Hill Assessment Index, Stairs Assessment Index, Standardized Walking Obstacle Course and One Leg Balance test. Results: Significant higher scores were found for the Rheo Knee® II on the Residual Limb Health subscale of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire when compared to the non-microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee (median [interquartile range] resp. 86.67 [62.21-93.08] and 68.71 [46.15-94.83]; P=0.047) In addition, participants needed significantly more steps to complete an obstacle course when walking with the Rheo Knee® II compared to the non-microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee (median [interquartile range] resp. 23.50 [19.92-26.25] and 22.17 [19.50-25.75]; P=0.041). On other outcome measures, no significant differences were found. Conclusions: Transition towards the Rheo Knee® II had little effect on the studied outcome measures.
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Kaufman, Kenton R.;Levine, James A.;Brey, Robert H.;McCrady, Shelly K.;Padgett, Denny J.;Joyner, Michael J.
通讯作者：
Joyner, Michael J.