Clinical Evidence
Ottobock has a long-standing commitment to advancing the field of orthotics and prosthetics (O&P) through rigorous clinical research. For over a century, the company has collaborated with clinicians, researchers, and institutions worldwide to generate evidence that supports the safety, efficacy, and real-world impact of its technologies. This dedication to scientific inquiry not only drives innovation but also helps ensure that individuals with mobility challenges receive the most effective, evidence-based care possible.
Below you will find a number of downloads specific to studies comparing microprocessor knees (MPKs) and non-microprocessor knees (NMPKs). These resources highlight the clinical benefits of MPK technology, including improved safety, mobility, and quality of life for users. The included studies represent a broad range of peer-reviewed research and real-world data, offering valuable insights for clinicians, payers, and policymakers evaluating the impact of advanced prosthetic solutions.
Learn more about Ottobock Clinical Evidence/Resources: https://corporate.ottobock.com/en/futuring/clinical-research
Kenevo MPK Main Clinical Takeaways | |
C-Leg MPK Main Clinical Takeaways | |
Ottobock MPKs: Clinically Proven | |
Genium X4 Clinical Evidence Summary | |
C-Leg + Kenevo Flyer | |
Comparison between the C-Leg MPK and non-MPKs: A preliminary study of energy expenditure, obstacle course performance, and quality of life survey | |
Benefits of MPKs to limited community ambulators: Systematic review | |
Comparison of non-MPK mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference | |
Safety, energy efficiency, and cost efficacy of the C-Leg for transfemoral amputees: A review of the literature | |
Ramp descent performance with the C-Leg and interrater reliability of the Hill Assessment Index | |
The effect of microprocessor controlled exo-prosthetic knees on limited community ambulators: systematic review and meta-analysis | |
Evaluation of Function, Performance, and Preference as Transfemoral Amputees Transition From Mechanical to Microprocessor Control of the Prosthetic Knee | |
Differences in function and safety between Medicare Functional Classification Level-2 and -3 transfemoral amputees and influence of prosthetic knee joint control | |
OASIS 1: Retrospective analysis of four different microprocessor knee types | |
The Safety of C-Leg: Biomechanical Tests | |
Assessing Clinical outcomes with MPK Utilization in a K2 population (ASCENT K2): randomized controlled trial results for above-knee prosthesis users over age 65 | |
C-Brace: Clinically Proven |
The C-Brace improves balance, risk of falling, mobility, function, and quality of life in KAFO users in a Randomized Crossover Study | |
Patient's burden and outcomes using a C-Brace vs. traditional KAFO from patient surveys | |
The C-Brace improves safety, mobility, and quality of life at one year: Interim results from a prospective registry | |
Experts' perceived patient burden and outcomes using a C-Brace vs. traditional KAFO | |
C-Brace vs. stance control vs. locked KAFO: a randomized controlled trial | |
Safety and walking ability with the C-Brace: a survey of KAFO users before and after C-Brace fitting | |
A functional comparison of conventional KAFOs vs. C-Brace based on biomechanical parameters |