Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Medical sciences and Public health

February 6, 2026; Zurich, Switzerland: XI International Scientific and Practical Conference «GRUNDLAGEN DER MODERNEN WISSENSCHAFTLICHEN FORSCHUNG»


SPECIFICS OF PHYSICAL THERAPY IN RESTORING GAIT FUNCTION FOR PATIENTS WITH ÖSSUR BIONIC LOWER LIMB PROSTHESES


DOI
https://doi.org/10.36074/logos-06.02.2026.056
Published
06.02.2026

Abstract

The evolution of lower limb prosthetics over the last decade has been marked by a fundamental shift from static, energy-storing designs to active cybernetic systems. Products from the Icelandic company Össur hold an avant-garde position due to the implementation of microprocessor control (MPK) and artificial intelligence, capable of predictive analysis of gait phases in real-time. However, clinical experience proves that the technological perfection of a device does not inherently guarantee functional recovery.

References

  1. Agrawal, V., Gailey, R. S., Gaunaurd, I. A., O'Toole, C., & Finnieston, A. (2015). Assessment of ramp and stair ambulation with a PROPRIO FOOT bionic ankle. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 52(2), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2014.07.0163
  2. Gailey, R. S. (2020). The Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMPPRO): A review of evidence-based prosthetic rehabilitation. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 31(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2019.09.001
  3. Hafner, B. J., Willingham, L. L., Buell, N. C., Allyn, K. J., & Smith, D. G. (2016). Mobility and satisfaction with a microprocessor-controlled knee in users with transfemoral amputation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 97(10), 1777–1788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.03.048
  4. Highsmith, M. J., Kahle, J. T., Bongiorni, D. R., Sutton, B. S., Grone, S., &
  5. Kaufman, K. R. (2014). Comparison of the Rheo Knee and Mauch SNS Knee in transfemoral amputees. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 38(5), 370–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364613506915
  6. Kaufman, K. R., Bernhardt, K. A., & Levine, A. M. (2012). Gait and balance improvements with microprocessor-controlled knee joints in trans-femoral amputees. Journal of Biomechanics, 45(12), 2110–2115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.03.029
  7. Stevens, P. M., Campbell, J. H., Rosenfeld, S. R., & Shurr, D. G. (2018). Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on microprocessor-controlled knee joints. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 30(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0000000000000197
  8. Webster, J. B., Levy, C. E., Bryant, P. R., & Geis, S. D. (2014). Clinical and cost-effectiveness of microprocessor-controlled knee joints: A systematic review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95(3), 574–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.09.015
  9. Wolf, E. J., Everding, V. Q., Linberg, A. A., Schnall, B. L., Czerniecki, J. M., & Gambel, J. M. (2012). Energy expenditure of transfemoral amputees walking on a Power Knee. Gait & Posture, 35(3), 390–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.10.339