Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Prosthetic Knee Joints on Gait

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Human Motion

Abstract

Transfemoral prostheses are intended to restore function and cosmesis in persons with limb loss. Lower-limb prostheses are generally intended to restore ambulation, a periodic activity in which the primary concern for the device is for the provision of natural, efficient movement. Of all the elements affecting locomotion, those most amenable to change relate to the device; thus, in the description of walking patterns, emphasis should be placed on prosthetic design, alignment, and fit. The designs of commercially available prosthetic knee units are generally biomimetic in nature, and their functions are fundamentally similar—the prosthetic knee must provide stability during stance phase to ensure that the user is safely supported on their prosthesis, and it must flex during swing phase to shorten the prosthesis and allow the user to advance the limb. However, different prosthetic knee designs offer different features above and beyond these minimum requirements, and selection of a particular knee joint depends upon an individual’s functional needs and abilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bellmann M, Schmalz T, Blumentritt S (2010) Comparative biomechanical analysis of current microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91(4):644–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.12.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumentritt S, Scherer HW, Wellershaus U, Michael JW (1997) Design principles, biomechanical data and clinical experience with a polycentric knee offering controlled stance phase knee flexion: a preliminary report. J Prosthet Orthot 9(1):18–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boonstra AM, Schrama JM, Eisma WH, Hof AL, Fidler V (1996) Gait analysis of transfemoral amputee patients using prostheses with two different knee joints. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77(5):515–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley JG, Spence WD, Solomonidis SE (1997) Energy cost of walking: comparison of "intelligent prosthesis" with conventional mechanism. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 78(3):330–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappozzo A, Figura F, Leo T, Marchetti M (1976) Biomechanical evaluation of above-knee prosthetics. In: Komi PV (ed) Biomechanics V-A. University Park Press, Baltimore, pp 366–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin T, Machida K, Sawamura S, Shiba R, Oyabu H, Nagakura Y et al (2006) 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 30(1):73–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin T, Sawamura S, Fujita H, Nakajima S, Ojima I, Oyabu H et al (1999) The efficacy of physiological cost index (PCI) measurement of a subject walking with an Intelligent Prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int 23(1):45–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Datta D, Heller B, Howitt J (2005) A comparative evaluation of oxygen consumption and gait pattern in amputees using Intelligent Prostheses and conventionally damped knee swing-phase control. Clin Rehabil 19:398–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelstein JE (1990) Prosthetic and orthotic gait. In: Smidt GL (ed) Gait in Rehabilitation. Churchill Livingston Inc., New York, pp 281–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Gard SA, Childress DS (1999) The influence of stance-phase knee flexion on the vertical displacement of the trunk during normal walking. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80(1):26–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gard SA, Childress DS, Uellendahl JE (1996) The influence of four-bar linkage knees on prosthetic swing-phase foot clearance. J Prosthet Orthot 8(2):34–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey CM, Jousse AT, Brett R, Butler JF (1975) A comparison of some gait characteristics with six knee joints. Orthot Prosthet 29(3):33–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene MP (1983) Four bar linkage knee analysis. Orthot Prosthet 37(1):15–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG (2007) Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88(2):207–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller BW, Datta D, Howitt J (2000) A pilot study comparing the cognitive demand of walking for transfemoral amputees using the Intelligent Prosthesis with that using conventionally damped knees. Clin Rehabil 14(5):518–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herr H, Wilkenfeld A (2003) User-adaptive control of a magnetorheological prosthetic knee. Ind Robot 30(1):42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isakov E, Susak Z, Becker E (1985) Energy expenditure and cardiac response in above-knee amputees while using prostheses with open and locked knee mechanisms. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl 12:108–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs NA (1988) Chap 16: Biomechanics of above-knee prostheses. In: Murdoch G, Donovan RG (eds) Amputation surgery & lower limb prosthetics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 130–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaegers SM, Arendzen JH, de Jongh HJ (1995) Prosthetic gait of unilateral transfemoral amputees: a kinematic study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76(8):736–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaegers SM, Vos LD, Rispens P, Hof AL (1993) The relationship between comfortable and most metabolically efficient walking speed in persons with unilateral above-knee amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74(5):521–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James U (1973) Oxygen uptake and heart rate during prosthetic walking in healthy male unilateral above-knee amputees. Scand J Rehabil Med 5(2):71–80

    Google Scholar 

  • James U, Oberg K (1973) Prosthetic gait pattern in unilateral above-knee amputees. Scand J Rehabil Med 5:35–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Jepson F, Datta D, Harris I, Heller B, Howitt J, McLean J (2008) A comparative evaluation of the Adaptive knee and Catech knee joints: a preliminary study. Prosthet Orthot Int 32(1):84–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson JL, Sherrill DM, Riley PO, Bonato P, Herr H (2005) A clinical comparison of variable-damping and mechanically passive prosthetic knee devices. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 84(8):563–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ, Hubbard SL (2008) Comparison of nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference. J Rehabil Res Dev 45(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman KR, Levine JA, Brey RH, Iverson BK, McCrady SK, Padgett DJ, Joyner MJ (2007) Gait and balance of transfemoral amputees using passive mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Gait Posture 26(4):489–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman KR, Levine JA, Brey RH, McCrady SK, Padgett DJ, Joyner MJ (2008) Energy expenditure and activity of transfemoral amputees using mechanical and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89(7):1380–1385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman KR, Sutherland DH (2006) Chapter 3. Kinematics of Normal Human Walking. In: Gamble JRJ (ed) Human walking, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 33–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirker S, Keymer S, Talbot J, Lachmann S (1996) An assessment of the Intelligent Knee prosthesis. Clin Rehabil 10:267–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klute GK, Berge JS, Orendurff MS, Williams RM, Czerniecki JM (2006) Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lower-extremity amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87(5):717–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler-McNicholas SR, Lipschutz RD, Gard SA (2016) The biomechanical response of persons with transfemoral amputation to variations in prosthetic knee alignment during level walking. J Rehabil Res Dev, (In press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler SR, Gard SA, Meier MR, Cassar M, Lipschutz R (2004) Stance-phase knee flexion in persons with unilateral transfemoral amputations walking on an Otto Bock 3R60 EBS Knee: a preliminary report. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Meeting of the Gait and Clinical Movement Analysis Society (GCMAS), Lexington, KY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier MR, Hansen AH, Gard SA, McFadyen AK (2012) Obstacle course: users’ maneuverability and movement efficiency when using Otto Bock C-Leg, Otto Bock 3R60, and CaTech SNS prosthetic knee joints. J Rehabil Res Dev 49(4):583–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael JW (1994) Prosthetic knee mechanisms. Phys Med Rehabil State Art Rev 8(1):147–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael JW (1999) Modern prosthetic knee mechanisms. Clin Orthop Relat Res 361:39–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael JW (2004) Chap 33: Prosthetic Suspensions and Components. In: Michael JW, Bowker JH, Smith DG (eds) Atlas of amputations and limb deficiencies: surgical, prosthetic, and rehabilitation principles, 3rd edn. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont, pp 409–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Moosabhoy MA, Gard SA (2006) Methodology for determining the sensitivity of swing leg toe clearance and leg length to swing leg joint angles during gait. Gait Posture 24(4):493–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy EF (1964) The swing phase of walking with above-knee prostheses. Bull Prosthet Res 10(1):5–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray MP, Mollinger LA, Sepic SB, Gardner GM, Linder MT (1983) Gait patterns in above-knee amputee patients: hydraulic swing control vs constant-friction knee components. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 64(8):339–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray MP, Sepic SB, Gardner GM, Mollinger LA (1980) Gait patterns of above-knee amputees using constant friction knee components. Bull Prosthet Res 17(2):35–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberg KET, Kamwendo K (1988) Chap 19: knee components for the above-knee amputation. In: Murdoch G, Donovan RG (eds) Amputation surgery & lower limb prosthetics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Orendurff MS, Segal AD, Klute GK, McDowell ML, Pecoraro JA, Czerniecki JM (2006) Gait efficiency using the C-Leg. J Rehabil Res Dev 43(2):239–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peizer E, Gardner HF (1972) Selection and application of knee mechanisms. Bull Prosthet Res 10(18):90–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry J, Burnfield JM (2010) Gait analysis: normal and pathological function, 2nd edn. SLACK Inc, Thorofare

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry J, Burnfield JM, Newsam CJ, Conley P (2004) Energy expenditure and gait characteristics of a bilateral amputee walking with C-leg prostheses compared with stubby and conventional articulating prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85(10):1711–1717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radcliffe CW (1970a) Biomechanics of above-knee prostheses. In: Murdoch G (ed) Prosthetic and Orthotic Practice. Edward Arnold Ltd., London, pp 191–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Radcliffe CW (1970b) Functional considerations in the fitting of above-knee prostheses. In: Wilson AB (ed) Selected articles from artificial limbs. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co. Inc., Huntington, pp 5–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Radcliffe CW (1977) The Knud Jansen Lecture: above-knee prosthetics. Prosthet Orthot Int 1(3):146–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalz T, Bellmann M, Proebsting E, Blumentritt S (2014) Effects of adaptation to a functionally new prosthetic lower-limb component: results of biomechanical tests immediately after fitting and after 3 months of use. J Prosthet Orthot 26(3):134–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Jarasch R (2002) Energy expenditure and biomechanical characteristics of lower limb amputee gait: the influence of prosthetic alignment and different prosthetic components. Gait Posture 16(3):255–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmalz T, Blumentritt S, Marx B (2007) Biomechanical analysis of stair ambulation in lower limb amputees. Gait Posture 25(2):267–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuch CM (1992) Transfemoral amputation: Prosthetic management. In: Michael JBJ (ed) Atlas of limb prosthetics. Mosby-Year Book, Inc., St. Louis, pp 509–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal AD, Orendurff MS, Klute GK, McDowell ML, Pecoraro JA, Shofer J, Czerniecki JM (2006) Kinematic and kinetic comparisons of transfemoral amputee gait using C-Leg and Mauch SNS prosthetic knees. J Rehabil Res Dev 43(7):857. https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2005.09.0147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sensinger JW, Intawachirarat N, Gard SA (2013) Contribution of prosthetic knee and ankle mechanisms to swing-phase foot clearance. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 21(1):74–80. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2224885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour R, Engbretson B, Kott K, Ordway N, Brooks G, Crannell J et al (2007) 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 31(1):51–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shurr DG, Michael JW (2002) Prosthetics & orthotics, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland JL, Sutherland DH, Kaufman KR, Teel M (1997) Gait comparison of two prosthetic knee units. J Prosthet Orthot 9(4):168–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor MB, Clark E, Offord EA, Baxter C (1996) A comparison of energy expenditure by a high level trans-femoral amputee using the Intelligent Prosthesis and conventionally damped prosthetic limbs. Prosthet Orthot Int 20(2):116–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Theeven P, Hemmen B, Rings F, Meys G, Brink P, Smeets R, Seelen H (2011) Functional added value of microprocessor-controlled knee joints in daily life performance of Medicare Functional Classification Level-2 amputees. J Rehabil Med 43(10):906–915. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traugh GH, Corcoran PJ, Reyes RL (1975) Energy expenditure of ambulation in patients with above-knee amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 56(2):67–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters RL, Mulroy S (1999) The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Gait Posture 9(3):207–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters RL, Perry J, Antonelli D, Hislop H (1976) Energy cost of walking of amputees: the influence of level of amputation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58(1):42–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters RL, Yakura JS (1989) The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med 1(3):183–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams RM, Turner AP, Orendurff M, Segal AD, Klute GK, Pecoraro J, Czerniecki J (2006) Does having a computerized prosthetic knee influence cognitive performance during amputee walking? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87(7):989–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Hafner BJ, Smith DG (2004) Measurement of knee center alignment trends in a national sample of established users of the Otto Bock C-Leg microprocessor-controlled knee unit. J Prosthet Orthot 16(3):72–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter DA (1992) Foot trajectory in human gait: a precise and multifactorial motor control task. Phys Ther 72(1):45–53 discussion 54-46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang L, Solomonidis SE, Spence WD, Paul JP (1991) The influence of limb alignment on the gait of above-knee amputees. J Biomech 24(11):981–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuniga EN, Leavitt LA, Calvert JC, Canzoneri J, Peterson CR (1972) Gait patterns in above-knee amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 53(8):373–382

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University Prosthetics-Orthotics Center (NUPOC), 680 North Lake Shore Drive, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Steven A. Gard

  2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Steven A. Gard

  3. Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, Chicago, IL, USA

    Steven A. Gard

Authors
  1. Steven A. Gard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven A. Gard .

Section Editor information

  1. Institut for Biomechanics und Orthopedic, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Gert-Peter Brüggemann

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA

    Zhigang Deng

  3. McIntosh Consultancy and Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Andrew S. McIntosh

  4. Wilmington, Delaware, USA

    Freeman Miller

  5. C-Motion Inc., Germantown, USA

    W. Scott Selbie

  6. Movement Analysis Laboratory, Clinic for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery; Center for Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery and Spinal Cord Injury;Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstr. 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany

    Sebastian I. Wolf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Gard, S.A. (2018). The Influence of Prosthetic Knee Joints on Gait. In: Handbook of Human Motion. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14418-4_75

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation