Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41133928›Full record

Trial reportPM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2026

Toward personalizing prosthesis prescription: A take-home study of three microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees: A randomized crossover study.

Kinsey Herrin, Sujay Kestur, Sixu Zhou, Gwyn O'Sullivan, Teresa Snow, Walter Lee Childers, Aaron Young

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06399471 (Personalizing MPK Prescription for Individuals With Transfemoral Amputation), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06399471 nacompletednot on this map

Personalizing MPK Prescription for Individuals With Transfemoral Amputation

TypeinterventionalSponsorGeorgia Institute of TechnologyRan2021 to 2023Enrolled11ConditionsTransfemoral AmputationArmsMicroprocessor prosthetic knee
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Measuring satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kinsey HerrinWoodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4292-8611
Sujay KesturWoodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Sixu ZhouWoodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Gwyn O'SullivanWoodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Teresa SnowSchool of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Walter Lee ChildersExtremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence (EACE), Military Performance Lab, Center for the Intrepid, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Aaron YoungWoodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Funding

Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs W81XWH-21-1-0686
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies on microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees (MPKs) often investigate benefits of MPKs as a class of knees rather than clinically relevant differences between specific knees, despite their distinct features.

objectivesTo systematically evaluate and report outcomes associated with three commercially available MPKs following a standardized real-world use period.

designRandomized crossover study.

settingResearch laboratory and community environment.

participantsTen patients with transfemoral amputation.

interventionsThree MPKs were fitted, trained, and worn for a 1-week period including C-Leg 4.0 (Ottobock, Duderstadt, Germany), Rheo Knee-Model RM7 (Össur, Reykjavik, Iceland), and Power Knee-PKA01 (Össur, Reykjavik, Iceland).

main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were the 10-meter walk test (10-mwt), the 2-minute walk test (2-mwt), and the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ). Secondary outcomes were stance time asymmetry, physiological cost index, stair and ramp speeds, the narrowing beam walking test, and community ambulation monitoring.

resultsParticipants walked 11% faster in Rheo than Power Knee during the 10-mwt (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.046-0.184, p = .015). In the 2-mwt, participants walked 12% faster in C-Leg (95% CI: 0.034-0.241, p = .003) and 9% faster in Rheo (95% CI: 0.031, 0.163, p = .027) than in Power Knee. On the PEQ, participants reported greater satisfaction with C-Leg compared to Power Knee (p = .006). Ramp ascent speed was 8% faster in Rheo than Power Knee (95% CI: 0.026-0.130, p = .024). No significant differences were found for other secondary outcomes. Notably, 10 of 12 outcomes showed individuals performing their best by a defined difference on an MPK different from the cohort's best-performing MPK.

conclusionsParticipants walked faster in C-Leg and Rheo than Power Knee and reported greater satisfaction with C-Leg. Consideration of patient needs and characteristics may allow more individualized MPK prescription and thereby improve rehabilitation outcomes. DATABASE REGISTRATION: NCT06399471.

Indexed as

Amputation, SurgicalAmputeesKnee ProsthesisMicrocomputersProsthesis FittingAgedCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis Design

Identifiers

PMID41133928
PMCPMC13001137

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.