Boonstra A M, Schrama J, Fidler V, Eisma W H
Department of Rehabilitation, Groningen University Hospital, The Netherlands.
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1995 Jun;27(2):77-81.
The aim of the study was (i) to evaluate the preference of transfemoral amputees for a 4-bar linked knee joint with either a mechanical swing phase control or a pneumatic swing phase control, and (ii) to compare the energy expenditure in transfemoral amputees using a prosthesis with a mechanical swing phase control with that of the same amputees using a prosthesis with a pneumatic swing phase control. The study included 28 unilateral transfemoral amputees amputated for reasons other than chronic vascular disease. All patients had a prosthesis with a knee joint with mechanical swing phase control (the Otto Bock 3R20) before entering the study. The amputees changed their knee joint to one with pneumatic swing phase control (the Tehlin knee joint) at random either after the first or second assessment. The amputees were asked for their preference at the second and third assessments. The energy expenditure while walking at speeds of 2 and 3 km/h was measured at each assessment. After having tried both knee joints, 19 patients preferred the Tehlin knee, 6 patients preferred the Otto Bock 3R20, and 3 patients had no preference. The energy expenditure measurement showed that walking with the Tehlin knee required more energy than walking with Otto Bock 3R20. Because of the limited number of patients included in the study and the fact that a double-blind design was impossible to achieve, conclusions should be drawn with caution.
（i）评估经股截肢者对带有机械摆动期控制或气动摆动期控制的四连杆膝关节的偏好；（ii）比较使用带有机械摆动期控制的假肢的经股截肢者与使用带有气动摆动期控制的假肢的同截肢者的能量消耗。该研究纳入了28例因慢性血管疾病以外的原因进行单侧经股截肢的患者。所有患者在进入研究前均佩戴带有机械摆动期控制的膝关节假肢（奥托博克3R20）。截肢者在第一次或第二次评估后随机将其膝关节更换为带有气动摆动期控制的膝关节（特林膝关节）。在第二次和第三次评估时询问截肢者的偏好。每次评估时测量以2公里/小时和3公里/小时速度行走时的能量消耗。在试用了两种膝关节后，19例患者更喜欢特林膝关节，6例患者更喜欢奥托博克3R20，3例患者无偏好。能量消耗测量表明，使用特林膝关节行走比使用奥托博克3R20行走需要更多能量。由于纳入研究的患者数量有限且无法实现双盲设计，应谨慎得出结论。
