Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Beyond microprocessor knees: exploring the potential of fully powered prosthetic legs.
Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering 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 NCT03204513 (Impact of Powered Knee-Ankle Prosthesis Leg on Everyday Community Mobility and Social Interaction), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Impact of Powered Knee-Ankle Prosthesis Leg on Everyday Community Mobility and Social Interaction
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPowered knee and ankle prostheses generate mechanical energy to replicate biological leg function, yet direct comparisons with more commonly prescribed microprocessor-controlled knee prostheses are limited by methodological variability and small sample sizes.
methodsTwelve adults with transfemoral or knee disarticulation limb loss or difference who regularly used microprocessor knees were enrolled in a crossover study. After device fitting and an average of 10 training sessions with a powered knee and ankle prototype, participants completed a comprehensive battery of biomechanical, physiological, and functional assessments. Tests were repeated using each participant's prescribed prosthesis following a two-month washout period to reduce carryover effects. Paired statistical comparisons were used to evaluate differences across key outcome measures.
resultsParticipants walked slightly slower and exhibited marginally reduced swing time symmetry when using the powered prosthesis. However, there were no significant differences in metabolic energy cost between devices, despite the significant increase in weight of the powered prosthesis. This may suggest that the powered leg provided sufficient assistance to compensate for its added weight, but did not yield improvements in walking speed, gait symmetry, or functional endurance.
conclusionsUse of this powered knee and ankle prosthesis resulted in comparable physiological effort and postural control to microprocessor knees, but did not improve outcomes like walking speed, symmetry, or endurance. Continued development of comparative testing protocols for prototype componentry could represents a critical step in optimizing PKA design and validation for improved clinical outcomes. Trial registration This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03204513; Date: 06/27/2017).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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 OpenQuestion graph.