Interventional Study on the Evaluation of Functionality, Safety of a Robotic Prosthesis for Transtibial Amputations
Interventional Pilot Study on the Evaluation of Functionality, Degree of Safety and Reliability of a New Robotic Prosthesis for Treatment of Transtibial Lower Limb Amputations
The goal of this multicenter interventional pilot is to verify the functionality of a prosthesis for trans-tibial amputees.
The main question it aims to answer are:
- Is to verify the technical functionality, safety and reliability of the propulsive lower limb prosthesis prototype, with active ankle, so as to provide indications regarding the technical and functional developments to be implemented in the finalization of the device.
- Provide an indication of the functional effectiveness of the device and its satisfaction by patients.
Participants will perform:
- walking tests inside parallel bars on flat and/or inclined terrain;
- walking tests on treadmill;
- stair climbing/descent tests.
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
FI
-
Firenze, FI, Italy, 50143
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Trans-tibial lower limb amputation;
- Medicare functional classification: Level K3-K4;
- Subjects who have worn prostheses for at least 1 year (experienced wearers);
- Use of prosthesis with energy-returning prosthetic foot.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Relevant medical comorbidities (serious neurological pathologies, cardiovascular pathologies, diabetes/hypertension not stabilized, severe sensory deficits);
- Wearers of implantable cardiac medical devices (PMK or AICD);
- Cognitive impairment (MMSE corrected for age and education <24);
- Inability or unavailability to provide informed consent;
- Severe depressive and/or anxious symptoms.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Device Feasibility
- Allocation: N/A
- Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: prosthetic group
prosthetic group performs the entire protocol with the prosthesis prototype.
|
evaluation of functionality, degree of safety and reliability of the lower limb prosthesis prototype
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
ad hoc check-list Adverse Event
Time Frame: baseline
|
questionnaire that evaluate the device feasability of the prosthesis and description of any adverse events.
|
baseline
|
|
ad hoc check-list Adverse Event
Time Frame: day 2
|
questionnaire that evaluate the device feasability of the prosthesis and description of any adverse events.
|
day 2
|
|
ad hoc check-list Adverse Event
Time Frame: day 3
|
questionnaire that evaluate the device feasability of the prosthesis and description of any adverse events.
|
day 3
|
|
ad hoc check-list Adverse Event
Time Frame: day 4
|
questionnaire that evaluate the device feasability of the prosthesis and description of any adverse events.
|
day 4
|
|
ad hoc check-list Adverse Event
Time Frame: day 5
|
questionnaire that evaluate the device feasability of the prosthesis and description of any adverse events.
|
day 5
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
CR-10 Borg Scale
Time Frame: day 5
|
0-10 numerical rating scale that evaluate of the subjective perception of effort during walking
|
day 5
|
|
System usability scale
Time Frame: baseline
|
a questionnaire made up of 10 questions whose answers are yes structured on a Likert scale with values 0-100 that assess the usability of the prosthesis
|
baseline
|
|
System usability scale
Time Frame: day 5
|
a questionnaire made up of 10 questions whose answers are yes structured on a Likert scale with values 0-100 that assess the usability of the prosthesis
|
day 5
|
|
10mwt - 10 meters walking test
Time Frame: day 2
|
to assess the walking speed
|
day 2
|
|
10mwt - 10 meters walking test
Time Frame: day 3
|
to assess the walking speed
|
day 3
|
|
SCT - stair climb test
Time Frame: day 2
|
to assess the capability of climb 8 stairs
|
day 2
|
|
SCT - stair climb test
Time Frame: day 3
|
to assess the capability of climb 8 stairs
|
day 3
|
|
TUG - Timed Up and GO
Time Frame: day 2
|
to assess lower limb capability
|
day 2
|
|
TUG - Timed Up and GO
Time Frame: day 3
|
to assess lower limb capability
|
day 3
|
|
6mwt - 6 minute walking test on the treadmill
Time Frame: day 4
|
to assess the fatigue
|
day 4
|
|
6mwt - 6 minute walking test on the treadmill
Time Frame: day 5
|
to assess the fatigue
|
day 5
|
|
Gait analisys
Time Frame: day 5
|
to assess the gait pattern
|
day 5
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Huang S, Huang H. Voluntary Control of Residual Antagonistic Muscles in Transtibial Amputees: Reciprocal Activation, Coactivation, and Implications for Direct Neural Control of Powered Lower Limb Prostheses. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019 Jan;27(1):85-95. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2885641. Epub 2018 Dec 7.
- Au SK, Herr H, Weber J, Martinez-Villalpando EC. Powered ankle-foot prosthesis for the improvement of amputee ambulation. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;2007:3020-6. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2007.4352965.
- Buckley JG, O'Driscoll D, Bennett SJ. Postural sway and active balance performance in highly active lower-limb amputees. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Jan;81(1):13-20. doi: 10.1097/00002060-200201000-00004.
- Borg, G. (1998). Borg's perceived exertion and pain scales. Human kinetics.
- Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A
- Cherelle P, Grosu V, Matthys A, Vanderborght B, Lefeber D. Design and Validation of the Ankle Mimicking Prosthetic (AMP-) Foot 2.0. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014 Jan;22(1):138-48. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2282416. Epub 2013 Oct 7.
- Eslamy, M., Grimmer, M., & Seyfarth, A. (2012). Effects of Unidirectional Parallel Springs on Required Peak Power and Energy in Powered Prosthetic Ankles: Comparison between Different Active Actuation Concepts. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, December 11-14, Guangzhou, China.
- Gailey R, Allen K, Castles J, Kucharik J, Roeder M. Review of secondary physical conditions associated with lower-limb amputation and long-term prosthesis use. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(1):15-29. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2006.11.0147.
- Grimmer, M., & Seyfarth, A. (2014). Mimicking human-like leg function in prosthetic limbs. In Neurorobotics: from brain machine interfaces to rehabilitation robotics. Berlin: Springer.
- Grimmer, M., Eslamy, M., & Seyfarth, A. (2014). Energetic and Peak Power Advantages of Series Elastic Actuators in an Actuated Prosthetic Leg for Walking and Running. Actuators, 3:1-19.
- Mak AF, Zhang M, Boone DA. State-of-the-art research in lower-limb prosthetic biomechanics-socket interface: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001 Mar-Apr;38(2):161-74.
- Marino, M., Pattni, S., Greenberg, M., Miller, A., Hocker, E., Ritter, S., et al. (2015). Access to prosthetic devices in developing countries: Pathways and challenges. 2015 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), 45-51.
- Pirouzi G, Abu Osman NA, Eshraghi A, Ali S, Gholizadeh H, Wan Abas WA. Review of the socket design and interface pressure measurement for transtibial prosthesis. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:849073. doi: 10.1155/2014/849073. Epub 2014 Aug 13.
- Segal AD, Orendurff MS, Klute GK, McDowell ML, Pecoraro JA, Shofer J, Czerniecki JM. Kinematic and kinetic comparisons of transfemoral amputee gait using C-Leg and Mauch SNS prosthetic knees. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006 Nov-Dec;43(7):857-70. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2005.09.0147.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- MOTU TT - studio clinico
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.