- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT02440711
Evaluation of a Modified Running-specific Prosthetic Foot
Endurance, Energy Expenditure, Perceived Function, and Satisfaction of Persons With Transtibial Limb Loss Using a Running-Specific Prosthesis Modified for Walking
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Amputation of a limb is a life-altering event with profound physical, psychological, and social implications. To address their functional, vocational, and recreational needs, people with lower limb amputation (LLA) are often provided with a prosthesis or artificial leg. While use of a prosthesis can allow an individual to achieve a basic level of functional mobility, absence of an anatomical foot and ankle still impairs their physical performance. As a result, people with LLA regularly exhibit decreased walking speeds, diminished endurance, and restricted ability to participate in desired life situations.
Over the past three decades, increasingly sophisticated prosthetic foot designs have been developed by the prosthetics industry to replace amputated structures in the leg. Contemporary, energy storing feet (ESF) employ advanced materials and unique geometric designs to improve walking performance and endurance of their users. Although prosthetic limbs with ESF allow people with LLA the potential to return to an active lifestyle, even the most advanced ESF do not significantly reduce the increased energy demands required for walking when compared to conventional prosthetic feet.
Commercially-available running-specific feet (RSF) like the Össur Cheetah (Össur, Reykjavik, Iceland) allow people with LLA to participate in athletic activities and sporting events. RSF provide significantly enhanced performance, compared to traditional ESF, by extending the length and increasing the stiffness of the prosthetic keel (forefoot). RSF also do not include a heel, as they are used only for running activities. Although transtibial runners with RSF exhibit endurance levels similar to non-amputees, the RSF design does not allow the biomechanical movements or provide the stability needed to use the foot for walking (over level or uneven terrain).
A novel modified running-specific foot (mRSF) has been developed to integrate the performance of a RSF with the utility of an ESF. The mRSF combines the running keel (forefoot) of a RSF with the walking heel of a ESF. The mRSF can then be used for walking, running, and other routine daily activities. Preliminary feedback on the mRSF suggests that users experience improved overall function and high satisfaction with the device. However, empirical evidence is needed to support prescription of this prosthetic foot at other clinical facilities.
The goal of this study is therefore to evaluate endurance, walking performance, mobility, and perceived exertion of transtibial prosthesis users (i.e., study participants) walking with a conventional ESF and the mRSF. Results will be compared to determine if the mRSF provides superior performance to the ESF, which is commonly prescribed to most active individuals with LLA.
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Washington
-
Seattle, Washington, United States, 98195
- University of Washington
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- unilateral or bilateral, transtibial (below-knee) amputation from non-dysvascular causes
- Medicare functional classification level (K-level) 3 or higher (unlimited community ambulatory)
- prosthetic user for > 1 year
- scheduled to receive a mRSF prosthesis
- able and willing to participate in the study protocol (e.g., treadmill walking, overground walking, respond to survey questions, able to read and write English)
Exclusion Criteria:
- contralateral lower or upper limb involvement
- any health condition that would limit participation in the study procedures (e.g., skin breakdown, heart disease)
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Experimental: mRSF-ESF
Study participants in Arm 1 will first receive the Modified running specific foot (mRSF) and then the Energy storing foot (ESF).
Outcomes will be assessed (in each condition) after 1 month of use.
Order of interventions will be randomly assigned.
|
A commercially-available energy storing prosthetic foot
Other Names:
A running specific prosthetic foot customized for both running and walking activities
Other Names:
|
Experimental: ESF-mRSF
Study participants in Arm 2 will first receive the Energy storing foot (ESF) and then the Modified running specific foot (mRSF).
Outcomes will be assessed (in each condition) after 1 month of use.
Order of interventions will be randomly assigned.
|
A commercially-available energy storing prosthetic foot
Other Names:
A running specific prosthetic foot customized for both running and walking activities
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Metabolic Oxygen Consumption (VO2), Participants With Unilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Breath-by-Breath VO2 was collected as participants walked on a treadmill at self selected fast, normal, and slow speeds.
Participants walked for 6 minutes at each speed (and in each experimental condition).
VO2 was normalized energy expenditure to each participant's biological mass (i.e., body mass without prosthesis) Normalized VO2 data were averaged to produce 30-s values for minutes 3-6 of each trial.
These 30-s values were used in for the described analyses.
Both gross and net VO2 were examined, but produced similar results, so only gross VO2 results are reported.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Metabolic Oxygen Consumption (VO2), Participants With Bilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Breath-by-Breath VO2 was collected as participants walked on a treadmill at self selected fast, normal, and slow speeds.
Participants walked for 6 minutes at each speed (and in each experimental condition).
VO2 was normalized energy expenditure to each participant's biological mass (i.e., body mass without prosthesis) Normalized VO2 data were averaged to produce 30-s values for minutes 3-6 of each trial.
These 30-s values were used in for the described analyses.
Both gross and net VO2 were examined, but produced similar results, so only gross VO2 results are reported.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Six-minute Walk Test (6MWT), Participants With Unilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Participants were asked to walk as far as possible in 6 minutes.
Participants walked around cones placed 30m apart in a level hallway.
Total distance (in meters) walked in 6 minutes was recorded.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Six-minute Walk Test (6MWT), Participants With Bilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Participants were asked to walk as far as possible in 6 minutes.
Participants walked around cones placed 30m apart in a level hallway.
Total distance (in meters) walked in 6 minutes was recorded.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (CR100), Participants With Unilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Participants were asked to self-report their level of perceived exertion after completing the 6MWT.
Participants were shown the Borg CR100 rating scale and asked to identify their level of exertion on a scale ranging from 0 to 120.
Higher scores mean greater exertion.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (CR100), Participants With Bilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Participants were asked to self-report their level of perceived exertion after completing the 6MWT.
Participants were shown the Borg CR100 rating scale and asked to identify their level of exertion on a scale ranging from 0 to 120.
Higher scores mean greater exertion.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Walking Speed, Participants With Unilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Walking speed (m/s) was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Walking Speed, Participants With Bilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Walking speed (m/s) was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Step Width, Participants With Unilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Step width was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Step Width, Participants With Bilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Step width was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Step Length, Participants With Unilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Step length (cm) was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).
Step length is reported for both the prosthetic and sound (intact) limbs.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Step Length, Participants With Bilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Step length (cm) was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).
Step length is reported for both the prosthetic and sound (intact) limbs.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Step Time, Participants With Unilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Step time was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).
Step time is reported for both the prosthetic and sound (intact) limbs.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Step Time, Participants With Bilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Step time was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).
Step time is reported for both the prosthetic and sound (intact) limbs.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Daily Step Activity, Participants With Unilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants' step count data from the 2 weeks prior to in-person testing.
|
Daily step activity (steps / day) were measured over the 2-week period prior to assessment using a Orthocare Innovations Stepwatch 3 activity monitor.
|
Participants' step count data from the 2 weeks prior to in-person testing.
|
Daily Step Activity, Participants With Bilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants' step count data from the 2 weeks prior to in-person testing.
|
Daily step activity (steps / day) were measured over the 2-week period prior to assessment using a Orthocare Innovations Stepwatch 3 activity monitor.
|
Participants' step count data from the 2 weeks prior to in-person testing.
|
Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), Participants With Unilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
The PLUS-M is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's prosthetic mobility.
It is scored using a standardized T-score centered on a national sample of unilateral lower limb prosthesis users (mean = 50, standard deviation = 10).
Participants were administered the PLUS-M computerized adaptive test and 12-item form on an iPad tablet.
The most precise score (i.e., score with the lowest error) was used for analysis.
Absolute score range from 0 to 100.
Higher T-scores indicate greater mobility.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), Participants With Bilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
The PLUS-M is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's prosthetic mobility.
It is scored using a standardized T-score centered on a national sample of unilateral lower limb prosthesis users (mean = 50, standard deviation = 10).
Participants were administered the PLUS-M computerized adaptive test and 12-item form on an iPad tablet.
The most precise score (i.e., score with the lowest error) was used for analysis.
Absolute score range from 0 to 100.
Higher T-scores indicate greater mobility.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System - Fatigue (PROMIS-Fatigue), Participants With Unilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
The PROMIS-Fatigue is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's symptoms and effects of fatigue.
It is scored using a standardized T-score centered on the US general population (mean = 50, standard deviation = 10).
Participants were administered the computerized adaptive test and a 12-item short form on an iPad tablet.
The most precise score (i.e., score with the lowest error) was used for analysis.
Absolute score range from 0 to 100.
Higher T-scores indicate greater fatigue.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System - Fatigue (PROMIS-Fatigue), Participants With Bilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
The PROMIS-Fatigue is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's symptoms and effects of fatigue.
It is scored using a standardized T-score centered on the US general population (mean = 50, standard deviation = 10).
Participants were administered the computerized adaptive test and a 12-item short form on an iPad tablet.
The most precise score (i.e., score with the lowest error) was used for analysis.
Absolute score range from 0 to 100.
Higher T-scores indicate greater fatigue.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), Participants With Unilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
The ABC is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's confidence in performing normal daily activities.
It is scored from 0 to 4. Participants were administered an electronic version of the ABC on an iPad tablet.
Scores range from 0 to 4. Higher scores indicate greater balance confidence.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), Participants With Bilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
The ABC is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's confidence in performing normal daily activities.
It is scored from 0 to 4. Participants were administered an electronic version of the ABC on an iPad tablet.
Scores range from 0 to 4. Higher scores indicate greater balance confidence.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Trinity Amputation Prosthesis Experience Scales, Revised (TAPES-R), Participants With Unilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
The TAPES-R is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's activity restrictions and satisfaction with a prosthesis.
The TAPES-R has three subscales (activity restrictions [TAPES-AR], functional satisfaction [TAPES-FUN], and aesthetic satisfaction [TAPES-AES], each scored from 0 to 2. Higher scores indicate more activity restrictions (TAPES-AR) or greater satisfaction (TAPES-FUN and TAPES-AES).
Participants were administered an electronic version of the TAPES-R on an iPad tablet.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Trinity Amputation Prosthesis Experience Scales, Revised (TAPES-R), Participants With Bilateral Amputation
Time Frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
The TAPES-R is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's activity restrictions and satisfaction with a prosthesis.
The TAPES-R has three subscales (activity restrictions [TAPES-AR], functional satisfaction [TAPES-FUN], and aesthetic satisfaction [TAPES-AES], each scored from 0 to 2. Higher scores indicate more activity restrictions (TAPES-AR) or greater satisfaction (TAPES-FUN and TAPES-AES).
Participants were administered an electronic version of the TAPES-R on an iPad tablet.
|
Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Brian Hafner, PhD, University of Washington
Publications and helpful links
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimated)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Other Study ID Numbers
- 49150
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.
Clinical Trials on Transtibial Amputation
-
VA Office of Research and DevelopmentRecruitingTranstibial Amputation | Transfemoral AmputationUnited States
-
Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement...University of Miami; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center; Uniformed... and other collaboratorsUnknownTranstibial Amputation | Transfemoral AmputationUnited States
-
US Department of Veterans AffairsUniversity of MichiganCompletedTranstibial AmputationUnited States
-
University of OklahomaTerminated
-
VA Office of Research and DevelopmentCompletedTranstibial AmputationUnited States
-
Southern California Institute for Research and...California State University, Long Beach; California State University, Dominguez...UnknownTranstibial AmputationUnited States
-
Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyEnrolling by invitationTranstibial Amputation - UnilateralUnited States
-
Mayo ClinicCompletedTranstibial Amputation - UnilateralUnited States
-
Orthocare Innovations, LLCEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development...WithdrawnTranstibial Amputation | Artificial LimbsUnited States
-
Major Extremity Trauma Research ConsortiumCompleted
Clinical Trials on Energy storing foot (ESF)
-
University of WashingtonCompletedAmputation | Artificial LimbUnited States
-
University of MichiganCompletedAmputation | Amputation, Traumatic | Amputation; Traumatic, Leg, LowerUnited States
-
October 6 UniversityCompletedDiabetic NeuropathiesEgypt
-
Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyHanger Clinic: Prosthetics & OrthoticsRecruitingAmputation of Lower Limb Below KneeUnited States
-
Suleymaniye Birth And Women's Health Education...Completed