Ottobock C-Leg + Kenevo: Clinically Proven Prosthetic Knees
Brand: Ottobock
Clinically Proven Performance
With over 100,000 fittings to date, the C-Leg is the most widely used and studied microprocessor-controlled knee (MPK) in the market. This legacy continues with the Kenevo. Both are clinically proven to be safer and improve the quality of life for users around the globe.
[Image: Two microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees are displayed. The left knee is darker, labeled 'ottobock' and 'C-Leg'. The right knee is lighter, labeled 'ottobock' and 'Kenevo', with 'CE' and 'MADE IN AUSTRIA' markings.]
Key Benefits and Statistics
- Up to 80% reduction in falls (1-7)
- Up to 65% reduction in users with injurious falls; C-Leg was the best of the 4 MPKs tested (8)
- Up to 50% chance to improve mobility from K2 to K3 (1, 2, 6, 7)
- Up to 38% higher downhill/slope-descent walking speed (2, 4, 7, 9)
- Up to 25% higher overground walking speed (1, 2, 9)
- Up to 20% higher walking speed on uneven ground (2, 6, 10)
Statistics above are for MPKs vs non-MPKs.
675 of the total 704 patients (96%) were treated with Ottobock-MPKs (K2 studies).
Out of over 100 MPK studies with K3 patients, over 80% were conducted with Ottobock MPKs.
References
- Hahn A, Bueschges S, Prager M, Kannenberg A. The effect of microprocessor controlled exo-prosthetic knees on limited community ambulators: systematic review and meta-analysis. Disabil Rehabil 2021 Oct 25:1-19. Download link.
- Kannenberg A, Zacharias B, Pröbsting E. Benefits of microprocessor prosthetic knees to limited community ambulators: A systematic review. J Rehabil Res Dev 2014;51(10):1469-1495.
- Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Bongiorni DR, Sutton BS, Groer S, Kaufman KR. Safety, energy efficiency, and cost efficacy of the C-leg for transfemoral amputees. Prosth Orthot Int 2010;34(4):362-377. Download link.
- Hafner BJ, Smith DG. Differences in function and safety between Medicare Functional Classification Level-2 and -3 transfemoral amputees and influence of prosthetic knee joint control. J Rehabil Res Dev 2009;46(3):417-434.
- Blumentritt S, Schmalz T, Jarasch R. The safety of C-leg: Biomechanical tests. J Prosthet Orthot 2009;21(1):2-17. Download link.
- Kahle JT, Highsmith MJ, Hubbard SL. Comparison of Non-microprocessor Knee Mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, Stumbles, Falls, Walking Tests, Stair Descent, and Knee Preference; J Rehabil Res Dev 2008;45(1):1-14.
- Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG: Evaluation of Function, Performance, and Preference as Transfemoral Amputees Transition from Mechanical to Microprocessor Control of the Prosthetic Knee. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88(2):207-217. Download link.
- Campbell JH, Stevens PM, Wurdeman SR. OASIS I. Retrospective analysis of four different microprocessor knee types. Journal Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2020;7: 1-10. Download link.
- Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Miro RM, Mengelkoch, MJ. Ramp descent performance with the C-leg and interrater reliability of the Hill Assessment Index. Prosthet Orthot Int 2013;37(5):362-368. Download link.
- Seymour R, Engbretson B, Kott K, Ordway N, Brooks G, Crannell J, Hickernell E, Wheller K. Comparison between the C-leg(R) 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 2007;31(1):51 - 61. Download link.
Please note that some studies require a subscription to a 3rd party provider.
Additional Information and Contact
For more information and additional download options, please visit us at:
US: https://shop.ottobock.us/clinical-evidence
CA: https://shop.ottobock.ca/clinical-evidence
US Contact: shop.ottobock.us | P 800 328 4058 | F 800 962 2549
CA Contact: shop.ottobock.ca | P 800 665 3327 | F 800 463 3659
