Impact of C-LEG on mobility, satisfaction and quality of life in a multicenter cohort of femoral amputees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In some countries, the microprocessor-controlled C-LEG knee joint is reimbursed by the national health insurance for transfemoral amputees under certain conditions. However, whether users really benefit from such a technology in their daily life is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To observe the performance of active C-LEG users in terms of locomotor ability and activities, satisfaction and quality of life after 6 months of wearing the prosthesis in real-life conditions. METHODS: This multicenter observational study investigated locomotor ability [Locomotor Capability Index 5 (LCI-5)], satisfaction [Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Device 2.0 (QUEST 2.0)] and quality of life [Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36)] at the beginning (T0) and end (T1) of the C-LEG test period and at 6 months (T2) after the confirmed prescription of the C-LEG. Information was also collected on the use of walking aids, daily wear of the prosthesis, falls and adverse events. RESULTS: We enrolled 102 participants; 81 were assessed at T1 (62 had a previous prosthesis) and 56 were followed up after 6 months (45 had a previous prosthesis). For participants who had previously been fitted with a prosthetic knee, which was mechanical in almost all cases, as compared with baseline, the use of C-LEG significantly improved locomotor ability (LCI-5 52.6 vs. 46.7, P<0.001), satisfaction (QUEST score 4.6 vs. 3.7, P<0.001) and physical quality of life (SF-36 physical component summary score 51.1 vs. 45.3, P<0.001). In addition, daily use of the prosthesis was higher and use of walking aids and frequency of falls were lower as compared with the previous period. CONCLUSIONS: Active transfemoral amputees with prescription of the C-LEG knee joint showed improved function, satisfaction and physical quality of life after 6 months of wear as compared with their previous prosthesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".