Back

Design and Evaluation of a Bone-anchored, Neurally-controlled Knee Prosthesis

McCullough, J.; Levine, D.; Shu, T.; Branemark, R.; Carty, M.; Herr, H.

2026-01-18 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.64898/2026.01.14.26343865 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCommercially-available microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees are unable to fully replicate the biomechanical function of the missing biological limb. While powered prostheses have the capacity to restore joint level kinetics, current systems rely on intrinsic control schemes that do not allow the user to volitionally modulate movement under neural commands. This limitation may compromise functional performance and hinder prosthetic embodiment, the sense that the device is part of the users body. In a case study on one test participant, we evaluate the functional and perceptual benefits of a bone-anchored, neurally-controlled knee prosthesis by comparing it to the participants microprocessor-controlled prosthesis. MethodsWe conducted a within-subject study on an individual with a transfemoral amputation, with an osseointegrated implant and surgically reconstructed agonist-antagonist muscle pairs. We tested a neurally-controlled powered knee and conventional microprocessor knee across a set of activities, including seated volitional control tasks, sit-to-stand transitions, squatting, level-ground walking, stair ascent, and uninstructed standing. Performance metrics included knee kinematics, prosthesis-generated mechanical power, and functional outcomes such as gait speed, stair ascent time, and weight-bearing symmetry derived from ground reaction forces. Functional mobility and control were complemented by self-reported embodiment, assessed through a questionnaire targeting agency, ownership, and body representation. ResultsThe neurally-controlled prosthesis enabled intuitive and responsive control. Compared to the subjects prescribed prosthesis, the prosthesis yielded improved temporal gait symmetry during walking (symmetry index: 0.93 vs. 0.59, with 1 indicating perfect stance time symmetry), increased prosthetic-side weight-bearing during sit-to-stand and squatting, and successful execution of a step-over-step stair ascent strategy--an outcome not achievable with the subjects prescribed device. Embodiment scores were consistently higher with the neurally-controlled prosthesis compared to the prescribed device across multiple domains, including agency, ownership and body representation. ConclusionsThis study is the first to directly compare a prescribed microprocessor knee with a bone-anchored, neurally-controlled powered prosthesis. By combining osseointegration, surgically reconstructed agonist-antagonist muscle pairs, and powered actuation, the system improved gait symmetry, greater prosthetic-side loading, and step-over-step stair ascent. These results demonstrate the novelty and promise of integrating surgical and mechatronic innovations to restore both functional mobility and embodied control after transfemoral amputation. Trial registrationThis study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at MIT (Protocol No. 2503001589).

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
25.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.4%
3
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
4
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 18%
6.3%
7
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.6%
8
JCI Insight
241 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
9
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
10
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
11
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
12
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
14
Gait & Posture
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
15
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 26%
0.9%
16
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.8%
17
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
18
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
19
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
20
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
21
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.6%
22
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
23
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
24
Human Movement Science
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
25
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
26
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
27
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
30 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
28
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.6%