Skip to content

Functional Outcomes in Dysvascular Transfemoral Amputees

Microprocessor Knee Versus Mechanical Knee: Impact on Functional Outcomes in Dysvascular Transfemoral Amputees

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01537211
Acronym
CLEG
Enrollment
10
Registered
2012-02-23
Start date
2011-08-31
Completion date
2019-04-30
Last updated
2019-09-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Transfemoral Amputation, Unilateral Traumatic Amputation of Leg at or Above Knee

Keywords

Dysvascular, amputation, above knee, ambulation

Brief summary

In older adults, poor circulation in the lower extremities leads to serious health complications including limb loss. In addition, individuals with dysvascular disease also suffer from other co-morbidities like diabetes, coronary and cerebrovascular disease. An individual with a transfemoral (TF) amputation is usually fitted with a prosthetic limb to assist with function, including a prosthetic knee and a prosthetic foot. Currently, dysvascular amputees are given a prosthetic knee based on the basic expectation that they will be functionally stable. This consideration does not address higher levels of function like walking at multiple speeds and over uneven ground. Also, dysvascular amputees are not able to counteract their co-morbidities with a more active lifestyle. Walking is less energy efficient; their traditional prostheses may cause early onset of fatigue and induce a fear of falling. Newer microprocessor knees enable patients with transfemoral amputations to walk on different surfaces and at multiple cadences through better control in swing and stance phases of gait. The impact of the functional differences in the prostheses is not clear and requires additional investigation to clarify the choice of the most appropriate functional prosthesis. The purpose of this study is to compare the functional outcomes with the traditional mechanical knee versus the microprocessor knee (C-leg) in transfemoral amputees.

Detailed description

In older adults, poor circulation in the lower extremities or dysvascular disease can lead to serious health complications. In addition, these individuals also suffer from serious co-morbidities like diabetes and coronary or cerebrovascular disease. Circulatory dysfunction or dysvascular disease is the major cause for amputations in the United States (www.amputee-coalition.orf/fact\_sheet/amp\_stats\_cause.html). Increasing sedentary lifestyles have lead to increased rates of diabetes which has significantly contributed to an increased number of amputations in recent years. The risk of amputation in a diabetic individual is 25 times higher than in the non-diabetic population. The level of amputation that is appropriate for an individual depends on the extent of damage to his/her tissues. Common amputations of the lower extremities in the dysvascular population include the transtibial and transfemoral amputations. The individual having a transtibial or below knee amputation, will be fitted with a prosthetic foot to assist with functional ambulation, while a person with a transfemoral amputation will require both a prosthetic foot and knee for ambulatory purposes. Currently dysvascular amputees are given prostheses based on the goal of returning them to a basic level of function focused primarily on stability. They are considered lower functioning walkers and are expected to use a slow and constant walking speed to ambulate around their homes and are not considered traditional community ambulators. Therefore, they are traditionally given standard mechanical knees which are considered safe, as they provide the ability for only simple single speed house-hold tasks. While this criterion does return the patient to function for basic Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and walking at a single cadence, it does not empower the patient to counteract the previously existing co-morbidities. Dysvascular amputees tend to be less active predisposing them to a more sedentary lifestyle and exacerbating their risk factors. Their prostheses make them energy inefficient and use more energy for ADLs and functional walking. This causes early onset of fatigue, induces anxiety and fear of falling. Further, they are often depressed, lose motivation and curtail their community interaction. This raises the question if dysvascular amputees are further functionally limited by the prostheses traditionally given to them. More recently, technology has been used to assist with return to function in the amputee population. Microprocessor (MP) controlled knees are among the technological innovations applied to prostheses to not only return amputees to a basic function, but also with a view to return them to their highest possible function. Over the years, clinical use has shown that traditional knees provide the ability to complete ADLs and basic functions like sit - stand. However, activities like negotiating stairs/steps, walking on uneven ground and self-correction during tripping; functions which reintegrate amputees into unlimited community ambulation and social reintegration require prosthetics which advanced functionality. The Otto Bock C-leg is a MP knee that allows the patient a greater level of control in swing and stance phases of gait. This enables the TF amputee to adjust the requirements of gait during dynamic walking like changing the speed of walking, going up and down stairs and inclines, walking on grass and uneven surfaces and crossing an obstacle. The C-leg has been traditionally given to patients who begin post-amputation rehabilitation at a higher level, but are more expensive than traditionally mechanical knees. In the contrary however, a European study that defined health outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life year (QALY), indicated that the C-leg showed a QALY gain of €3218 per patient, makes it still financial viable keeping it mind its price tag.. The purpose of this study is to compare the traditional mechanical knee to the microprocessor knee (C-leg) in the dysvascular population. The study will specifically evaluate the potential of microprocessor knees to improve the quality of life in dysvascular transfemoral amputees. This includes identifying if the C-leg can increase the activity level to be classified at a higher level by the Medicare classification from K2 (lower level ambulators) to K3 (more proficient ambulators), along with increasing their social interaction in the community.

Interventions

DEVICEC leg compared to subject's mechanical leg (Otto Bock)

comparison of different prosthetic knees

Sponsors

Otto Bock Healthcare
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Shirley Ryan AbilityLab
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Males or females with dysvascular transfemoral amputations * 6 months or more post prosthetic fitting * Homebound or limited community ambulators post amputation * Ability to walk \> 50m in a 2 min walk test

Exclusion criteria

* Traumatic, cancer or genetic amputation * Co-morbidity that completely prevents physical activity * Significant skin lesions/ulcers on stump that prevent fitting of prosthesis * Cognitive deficits or visual impairments that would impair their ability to give informed consent or to follow simple instructions during experiment

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in Community Physical Activity as Measured by GPSbaseline, 1 month with mechanical knee, 1 month with microprocessor kneeThe difference in social mobility (as seen by GPS) between the 2 devices will be measured.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in 10 Meter Walk Test Gait Speed From BaselineAfter 3 month acclimation period to deviceMeasure of self selected walking speed by measuring the time it takes an individual to walk 10 meters. The test is performed using a flying start, patient walks 10 meters (33 ft) and the time is measured when the leading foot crosses the start line and the finish line.
Change in Amputee Mobility Predictor Score From BaselineAfter 3 month acclimation period to deviceThe Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP) instrument is used to asses the functional mobility through a standardized sequence of mobility tests while using the prosthesis. Individual tasks are scored and combined, resulting in a total assessment, which is scored out of 47. The minimum score is zero and maximum score on this scale is 47. Higher scores indicate better mobility.
Change in Berg Balance Score From BaselineAfter 3 month acclimation period to deviceThe Berg balance scale is used to assess balance during functional activities. It is a performance-based tool, scored between 0 and 56 with higher numbers indicating better balance.
Change in Timed Up and Go Test Time From BaselineAfter 3 month acclimation period to deviceThe Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is administered to quantify fall risk and functional mobility. TUG is the time taken for the subject to get up from a chair, walk 3 meters, and sit down. The time for the test to be completed is reported in seconds.
Change in 6 Minute Walk Test From BaselineAfter 3 month acclimation period to deviceThe 6 Minute Walk Test (6MWT) is an endurance test, which measures the distance a subject can walk indoors on a flat, hard surface over a period of 6 minutes, using assistive devices as necessary. The distance covered during the test is measured with a measuring wheel.
Change in Modified Falls Efficacy Scale From BaselineAfter 3 month acclimation period to deviceThe Modified Falls Efficacy Scale is used to determine falls and near-falls. It is a self-reported 14-item questionnaire filled out by the subject. Subjects answer questions about how confident they are in safely completing various tasks on a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 indicating greater confidence. The score below is the average item-score for the assessment.
Change in Community Participation Indicators From BaselineAfter 3 month acclimation period to deviceThe Community Participation Indicators questionnaire will be used to determine community and social participation. It is self-reported outcome measure for community participation. Different questions within the questionnaire correspond to two different aspects of community participation: involvement in life situations and control over participation. These two items are reported first in the table below. The minimum score is 0, and the maximum score is 100. Higher values correspond to higher levels of community participation. These two aspects can be further broken down into percentages of productive activities, social activities, and low-frequency activities performed often enough (the remaining reported values). Each of these percentages has a minimum score of zero and a maximum score of 100, with higher percentages indicating greater satisfaction with the frequency to which the activities are performed.
Change in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineAfter 3 month acclimation period to deviceThe Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) will be used to determine prosthesis preference. It is a questionnaire filled out by the subject that is sectioned into validated scales related to usage of the given prosthesis. These validated scales are ambulation, appearance, frustration, perceived response, residual limb health, social burden, sounds, utility, and well being. Items included in these scales are scored between a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 100. Reported below are the averages of the validated scales. Thus, the average of each scale has a maximum score of 100 and a minimum score of 0, with a larger value indicating a more positive response.
Change in Four Square Step Test Time From BaselineAfter 3 month acclimation period to deviceThe four square step test assesses stepping and change of direction. The subject is asked to walk in a sequence across canes arranged to form four squares. The time to complete the sequence is reported in seconds.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Microprocessor Knee Then Mechanical Knee
C leg compared to subject's mechanical leg (Otto Bock): comparison of different prosthetic knees
4
Mechanical Knee Then Microprocessor Knee
C leg compared to subject's mechanical leg (Otto Bock): comparison of different prosthetic knees
6
Total10

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up01

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicMechanical Knee Then Microprocessor KneeTotalMicroprocessor Knee Then Mechanical Knee
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
2 Participants5 Participants3 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
4 Participants5 Participants1 Participants
Age, Continuous60.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.5
63.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.8
67.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.7
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
6 participants10 participants4 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
3 Participants6 Participants3 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
3 Participants4 Participants1 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 90 / 10
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 90 / 10
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 90 / 10

Outcome results

Primary

Change in Community Physical Activity as Measured by GPS

The difference in social mobility (as seen by GPS) between the 2 devices will be measured.

Time frame: baseline, 1 month with mechanical knee, 1 month with microprocessor knee

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
BaselineChange in Community Physical Activity as Measured by GPS1749 Steps per dayStandard Deviation 2072
Mechanical KneeChange in Community Physical Activity as Measured by GPS1625 Steps per dayStandard Deviation 1150
Microprocessor KneeChange in Community Physical Activity as Measured by GPS1257 Steps per dayStandard Deviation 1164
Secondary

Change in 10 Meter Walk Test Gait Speed From Baseline

Measure of self selected walking speed by measuring the time it takes an individual to walk 10 meters. The test is performed using a flying start, patient walks 10 meters (33 ft) and the time is measured when the leading foot crosses the start line and the finish line.

Time frame: After 3 month acclimation period to device

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
BaselineChange in 10 Meter Walk Test Gait Speed From Baseline0.483 meters per secondStandard Deviation 0.152
Mechanical KneeChange in 10 Meter Walk Test Gait Speed From Baseline0.645 meters per secondStandard Deviation 0.273
Microprocessor KneeChange in 10 Meter Walk Test Gait Speed From Baseline0.764 meters per secondStandard Deviation 0.282
Secondary

Change in 6 Minute Walk Test From Baseline

The 6 Minute Walk Test (6MWT) is an endurance test, which measures the distance a subject can walk indoors on a flat, hard surface over a period of 6 minutes, using assistive devices as necessary. The distance covered during the test is measured with a measuring wheel.

Time frame: After 3 month acclimation period to device

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
BaselineChange in 6 Minute Walk Test From Baseline434.0 FeetStandard Deviation 270.3
Mechanical KneeChange in 6 Minute Walk Test From Baseline472.2 FeetStandard Deviation 348.6
Microprocessor KneeChange in 6 Minute Walk Test From Baseline476.4 FeetStandard Deviation 361.9
Secondary

Change in Amputee Mobility Predictor Score From Baseline

The Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP) instrument is used to asses the functional mobility through a standardized sequence of mobility tests while using the prosthesis. Individual tasks are scored and combined, resulting in a total assessment, which is scored out of 47. The minimum score is zero and maximum score on this scale is 47. Higher scores indicate better mobility.

Time frame: After 3 month acclimation period to device

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
BaselineChange in Amputee Mobility Predictor Score From Baseline30 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8
Mechanical KneeChange in Amputee Mobility Predictor Score From Baseline34 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6
Microprocessor KneeChange in Amputee Mobility Predictor Score From Baseline36 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5
Secondary

Change in Berg Balance Score From Baseline

The Berg balance scale is used to assess balance during functional activities. It is a performance-based tool, scored between 0 and 56 with higher numbers indicating better balance.

Time frame: After 3 month acclimation period to device

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
BaselineChange in Berg Balance Score From Baseline35 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10
Mechanical KneeChange in Berg Balance Score From Baseline39 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14
Microprocessor KneeChange in Berg Balance Score From Baseline44 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13
Secondary

Change in Community Participation Indicators From Baseline

The Community Participation Indicators questionnaire will be used to determine community and social participation. It is self-reported outcome measure for community participation. Different questions within the questionnaire correspond to two different aspects of community participation: involvement in life situations and control over participation. These two items are reported first in the table below. The minimum score is 0, and the maximum score is 100. Higher values correspond to higher levels of community participation. These two aspects can be further broken down into percentages of productive activities, social activities, and low-frequency activities performed often enough (the remaining reported values). Each of these percentages has a minimum score of zero and a maximum score of 100, with higher percentages indicating greater satisfaction with the frequency to which the activities are performed.

Time frame: After 3 month acclimation period to device

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
BaselineChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselineInvolvement in Life Situations49.26 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.23
BaselineChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselineControl over Participation61.68 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.57
BaselineChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselinePercent Social Activities Performed Often Enough67.19 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.66
BaselineChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselinePercent Productive Activities Performed Enough62.96 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 39.55
BaselineChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselinePercent Low-Frequency Activities Performed Enough57.88 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 33.51
BaselineChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselineTotal Percent of Activities Performed Enough63.91 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.51
Mechanical KneeChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselineTotal Percent of Activities Performed Enough68.74 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 27.97
Mechanical KneeChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselineInvolvement in Life Situations50.16 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.25
Mechanical KneeChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselinePercent Productive Activities Performed Enough76.17 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.18
Mechanical KneeChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselinePercent Low-Frequency Activities Performed Enough61.43 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 41.4
Mechanical KneeChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselineControl over Participation65.28 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.24
Mechanical KneeChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselinePercent Social Activities Performed Often Enough68.62 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 33.99
Microprocessor KneeChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselineControl over Participation74.69 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.67
Microprocessor KneeChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselinePercent Social Activities Performed Often Enough72.19 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 34.59
Microprocessor KneeChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselineTotal Percent of Activities Performed Enough69.98 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.06
Microprocessor KneeChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselinePercent Productive Activities Performed Enough72.96 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 32.55
Microprocessor KneeChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselineInvolvement in Life Situations55.83 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.99
Microprocessor KneeChange in Community Participation Indicators From BaselinePercent Low-Frequency Activities Performed Enough64.79 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 35.87
Secondary

Change in Four Square Step Test Time From Baseline

The four square step test assesses stepping and change of direction. The subject is asked to walk in a sequence across canes arranged to form four squares. The time to complete the sequence is reported in seconds.

Time frame: After 3 month acclimation period to device

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
BaselineChange in Four Square Step Test Time From Baseline17.96 secondsStandard Deviation 5.11
Mechanical KneeChange in Four Square Step Test Time From Baseline19.74 secondsStandard Deviation 11.72
Microprocessor KneeChange in Four Square Step Test Time From Baseline16.79 secondsStandard Deviation 11.17
Secondary

Change in Modified Falls Efficacy Scale From Baseline

The Modified Falls Efficacy Scale is used to determine falls and near-falls. It is a self-reported 14-item questionnaire filled out by the subject. Subjects answer questions about how confident they are in safely completing various tasks on a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 indicating greater confidence. The score below is the average item-score for the assessment.

Time frame: After 3 month acclimation period to device

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
BaselineChange in Modified Falls Efficacy Scale From Baseline7.58 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.24
Mechanical KneeChange in Modified Falls Efficacy Scale From Baseline8.61 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.02
Microprocessor KneeChange in Modified Falls Efficacy Scale From Baseline9.33 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.69
Secondary

Change in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From Baseline

The Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) will be used to determine prosthesis preference. It is a questionnaire filled out by the subject that is sectioned into validated scales related to usage of the given prosthesis. These validated scales are ambulation, appearance, frustration, perceived response, residual limb health, social burden, sounds, utility, and well being. Items included in these scales are scored between a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 100. Reported below are the averages of the validated scales. Thus, the average of each scale has a maximum score of 100 and a minimum score of 0, with a larger value indicating a more positive response.

Time frame: After 3 month acclimation period to device

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
BaselineChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselinePerceived Response83.81 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.42
BaselineChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineWell Being70.05 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.63
BaselineChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineSocial Burdern70.59 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.52
BaselineChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineResidual Limb Health82.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.1
BaselineChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineAmbulation58.64 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.76
BaselineChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineUtility67.80 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.59
BaselineChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineFrustration80.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.6
BaselineChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineAppearance69.80 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.86
BaselineChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineSounds74.20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.88
Mechanical KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineResidual Limb Health79.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.9
Mechanical KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineAmbulation58.28 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.41
Mechanical KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineAppearance68.78 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.23
Mechanical KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineFrustration64.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.2
Mechanical KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselinePerceived Response87.39 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.73
Mechanical KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineSocial Burdern76.08 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.73
Mechanical KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineSounds72.60 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 30.49
Mechanical KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineUtility67.02 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.92
Mechanical KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineWell Being79.00 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.81
Microprocessor KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineFrustration90.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.2
Microprocessor KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineAmbulation81.92 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.74
Microprocessor KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineSounds93.50 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.62
Microprocessor KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineAppearance85.91 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.32
Microprocessor KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineWell Being85.44 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.75
Microprocessor KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineResidual Limb Health85.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.8
Microprocessor KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselinePerceived Response88.86 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.39
Microprocessor KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineUtility83.92 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.09
Microprocessor KneeChange in Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) From BaselineSocial Burdern88.72 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.92
Secondary

Change in Timed Up and Go Test Time From Baseline

The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is administered to quantify fall risk and functional mobility. TUG is the time taken for the subject to get up from a chair, walk 3 meters, and sit down. The time for the test to be completed is reported in seconds.

Time frame: After 3 month acclimation period to device

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
BaselineChange in Timed Up and Go Test Time From Baseline29.95 secondsStandard Deviation 16.14
Mechanical KneeChange in Timed Up and Go Test Time From Baseline29.91 secondsStandard Deviation 15.61
Microprocessor KneeChange in Timed Up and Go Test Time From Baseline25.32 secondsStandard Deviation 14.14

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 15, 2026