Knee OsteoarthritisNCT00457132
The Effect of Neuromuscular Training on Osteoarthritis: A Comparative Prospective Randomized Study
A study testing APOS biomechanical gait system in people with Knee Osteoarthritis, run by Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center at 1 site in Israel.
Trial summary
Context: The many treatments and devices developed to unload the diseased articular surface in knee osteoarthritis have provided limited solutions. A novel biomechanical device comprising of four individually calibrated elements attached onto foot-worn platforms was recently developed. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 45 to 85 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Knee Osteoarthritis
- What is being tested?
- APOS biomechanical gait system
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 1 siteIsrael
- Study dates
- Sep 2005to Feb 2006
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 45 to 85 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- radiographically assessed osteoarthritis of the knee graded 1 to 4 according to the Kellgren and Lawrence scale
- self reported moderate to severe level pain
Who cannot join
- acute septic arthritis
- predisposition to a tendency to fall
- lack of physical or mental ability to perform or comply with the treatment procedure
- diabetes mellitus
- history of pathological osteoporotic fracture
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Dynamic Wedging: A Novel Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis
Context: The many treatments and devices developed to unload the diseased articular surface in knee osteoarthritis have provided limited solutions. A novel biomechanical device comprising of four individually calibrated elements attached onto foot-worn platforms was recently developed. This device is capable of such unloading during standing and walking, simultaneously strengthening dynamic stabilizers and training neuromuscular control by controlled biomechanical perturbations.
Objective: To asses the effectiveness of this device in reducing pain and improving function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Read more
Design and Setting: Randomized, controlled and double blind prospective trial, conducted from September 2005 to February 2006, in the Department of Orthopedics, Asaf Harofeh Medical Center (Zerifin, Israel).
Patients: Sixty-one patients with diagnosed knee osteoarthritis who self-reported moderate-to-severe level pain.
Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned into active and control groups and underwent 8 weeks of treatment. The active group was treated with the device and its four biomechanical elements that had been individually calibrated to accommodate a pain-free joint alignment. The control group was treated with the device's platforms without the biomechanical elements.
Primary Outcome Measures: The patients were evaluated three times during the study: at baseline, after 4 weeks and at the 8 week endpoint. Primary outcomes were the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Aggregated Locomotor Function (ALF) assessment.
Read the detailed description
The Biomechanical System The biomechanical system is a biomechanical device (US Patent No. 6,979,287) combined with a treatment methodology (US Patent No. 7,101,330). The device is calibrated for the individual patient according to pathology and motion characteristics. Appropriate calibration is defined as bringing the damaged joint to a biomechanical alignment that minimizes/eliminates pain by shifting and/or changing the applied forces and, consequently, altering pressure distribution within the joint. Together with the biomechanical perturbation applied through all phases of the step-cycle (i.e. initial contact, mid-stance and toe-off), this enables home-based, dynamic, functional and repetitive training to strengthen dynamic stabilizers and improve neuromuscular control.
The device consists of two half spherical-shaped biomechanical elements attached to each of the patient's feet. One is located under the hindfoot region and the other is located under the forefoot region. The elements are available in different degrees of resilience and convexity, and are attached to the patient's foot using a platform in the form of a shoe. The platform is equipped with a specially designed sole, which consists of two mounting rails to enable flexible positioning of each element under each region.
A specific level of "unloading" under a specific level of perturbation is required for controlling pain in the affected compartment while reducing excessive loads of soft tissue structures. Primary guidelines for calibration dictate the choice of resilience, convexity and the position of each element. For example, in a genu-varus deformity the elements are positioned under the neutral axis of the patient's leg. The element under the hindfoot is further translated laterally to the longitudinal axis of the patient's leg in order to apply wedging, while the element under the forefoot is further translated medially to reduce the tension applied by soft tissue in the medial compartment, and to decrease adduction moment. When required, further soft tissue tension and/or pressure can be decreased by adding plantar flexion and/or forward translation of the hindfoot element.
Pain and motion instability are periodically evaluated to determine whether recalibration is required.
Treatment (Active) Protocol The device was calibrated for each patient after baseline assessment. Then, treatment was initiated and continued daily for a period of 8 weeks, during which the device was again calibrated, as necessary, after the first, third and sixth week. Patients were instructed to follow a treatment protocol which was based on walking during activities of daily living and started with 10 minutes of indoor walking each day during the first week and gradually increased to 30 minutes of daily outdoor walking in the last week. Other than that, they were told to continue their daily activities wearing their regular footwear. They were also instructed not to ingest any pain relief medication, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or food supplements except for the acetaminophen tablets (unmarked) that had been given to them at study entry to be taken when needed. The consumption of acetaminophen or any other medication was monitored during each assessment.
Control Protocol Patients in the control group were fitted with a platform which was identical in appearance but had a regular sole and did not include the biomechanical elements. They were instructed to follow the same treatment protocol as the active group and not to ingest any medication or food supplement apart from the unmarked acetaminophen tablets that had been given to them.
Assessment We tested the clinical efficacy of a device designed for reducing pain and improving function in knee osteoarthritis patients by means of the self-reported Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the measured aggregated locomotor function (ALF). The WOMAC is composed of a 5 items pain scale, a 2 items stiffness scale and a 17 items function scale. All 24 items are rated by the patients on a visual-analogue-scale (in cm) from 0 (no symptoms/limitations) to 10 (maximal symptoms/limitations). The ALF scale is a sum of mean timed score (seconds) of three locomotor functions: time taken to walk 8 meters, time taken to accent and decent 7 stairs and time taken to transfer from sitting to standing. The patients were evaluated three times during the study: at baseline, after 4 weeks and at the 8 week endpoint. Measurements were made with the patients barefooted as required by the outcome protocol.
To ensure our ability to detect clinically significant differences, we also used the SF-36 health survey and the Knee Society Score as self-reported secondary outcomes (the latter includes a physical examination subscale).
- Conditions
- Knee Osteoarthritis
- Being tested
- APOS biomechanical gait system
- Keywords
- Knee, Osteoarthritis, WOMAC, ALF, Wedging
- Medical subject headings
- Osteoarthritis, Knee, Osteoarthritis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
APOS biomechanical gait systemDevice
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)
Aggregated Locomotor Function (ALF)
Secondary outcomes (2)
SF-36 health survey
Knee Society Score
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Apr 2007 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2005
- Study completionFeb 2006
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Knee OsteoarthritisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Enrolment
- 60 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Investigators
- Nahum Halperin, MD, Principal investigator, Asaf-Harofeh Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00457132
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 44/05
- Status last verified
- Apr 2007
- First submitted
- 4 Apr 2007
- Last updated
- 27 Jun 2007
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Bar-Ziv Y, Beer Y, Ran Y, Benedict S, Halperin N. A treatment applying a biomechanical device to the feet of patients with knee osteoarthritis results in reduced pain and improved function: a prospective controlled study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010 Aug 10;11:179. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-179.
PubMed 20698991
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Jun 2007. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Dynamic Wedging: A Novel Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00457132
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 44/05
- Conditions
- Knee Osteoarthritis
- Keywords
- Knee, Osteoarthritis, WOMAC, ALF, Wedging
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 60 participants
- Lead sponsor
- Assaf-Harofeh Medical CenterOther government
- Study start
- Sep 2005
- Study completion
- Feb 2006 (actual)
- First posted
- 5 Apr 2007 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Context: The many treatments and devices developed to unload the diseased articular surface in knee osteoarthritis have provided limited solutions. A novel biomechanical device comprising of four individually calibrated elements attached onto foot-worn platforms was recently developed. This device is capable of such unloading during standing and walking, simultaneously strengthening dynamic stabilizers and training neuromuscular control by controlled biomechanical perturbations.
Objective: To asses the effectiveness of this device in reducing pain and improving function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Design and Setting: Randomized, controlled and double blind prospective trial, conducted from September 2005 to February 2006, in the Department of Orthopedics, Asaf Harofeh Medical Center (Zerifin, Israel).
Patients: Sixty-one patients with diagnosed knee osteoarthritis who self-reported moderate-to-severe level pain.
Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned into active and control groups and underwent 8 weeks of treatment. The active group was treated with the device and its four biomechanical elements that had been individually calibrated to accommodate a pain-free joint alignment. The control group was treated with the device's platforms without the biomechanical elements.
Primary Outcome Measures: The patients were evaluated three times during the study: at baseline, after 4 weeks and at the 8 week endpoint. Primary outcomes were the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Aggregated Locomotor Function (ALF) assessment.
Detailed description
The Biomechanical System The biomechanical system is a biomechanical device (US Patent No. 6,979,287) combined with a treatment methodology (US Patent No. 7,101,330). The device is calibrated for the individual patient according to pathology and motion characteristics. Appropriate calibration is defined as bringing the damaged joint to a biomechanical alignment that minimizes/eliminates pain by shifting and/or changing the applied forces and, consequently, altering pressure distribution within the joint. Together with the biomechanical perturbation applied through all phases of the step-cycle (i.e. initial contact, mid-stance and toe-off), this enables home-based, dynamic, functional and repetitive training to strengthen dynamic stabilizers and improve neuromuscular control.
The device consists of two half spherical-shaped biomechanical elements attached to each of the patient's feet. One is located under the hindfoot region and the other is located under the forefoot region. The elements are available in different degrees of resilience and convexity, and are attached to the patient's foot using a platform in the form of a shoe. The platform is equipped with a specially designed sole, which consists of two mounting rails to enable flexible positioning of each element under each region.
A specific level of "unloading" under a specific level of perturbation is required for controlling pain in the affected compartment while reducing excessive loads of soft tissue structures. Primary guidelines for calibration dictate the choice of resilience, convexity and the position of each element. For example, in a genu-varus deformity the elements are positioned under the neutral axis of the patient's leg. The element under the hindfoot is further translated laterally to the longitudinal axis of the patient's leg in order to apply wedging, while the element under the forefoot is further translated medially to reduce the tension applied by soft tissue in the medial compartment, and to decrease adduction moment. When required, further soft tissue tension and/or pressure can be decreased by adding plantar flexion and/or forward translation of the hindfoot element.
Pain and motion instability are periodically evaluated to determine whether recalibration is required.
Treatment (Active) Protocol The device was calibrated for each patient after baseline assessment. Then, treatment was initiated and continued daily for a period of 8 weeks, during which the device was again calibrated, as necessary, after the first, third and sixth week. Patients were instructed to follow a treatment protocol which was based on walking during activities of daily living and started with 10 minutes of indoor walking each day during the first week and gradually increased to 30 minutes of daily outdoor walking in the last week. Other than that, they were told to continue their daily activities wearing their regular footwear. They were also instructed not to ingest any pain relief medication, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or food supplements except for the acetaminophen tablets (unmarked) that had been given to them at study entry to be taken when needed. The consumption of acetaminophen or any other medication was monitored during each assessment.
Control Protocol Patients in the control group were fitted with a platform which was identical in appearance but had a regular sole and did not include the biomechanical elements. They were instructed to follow the same treatment protocol as the active group and not to ingest any medication or food supplement apart from the unmarked acetaminophen tablets that had been given to them.
Assessment We tested the clinical efficacy of a device designed for reducing pain and improving function in knee osteoarthritis patients by means of the self-reported Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the measured aggregated locomotor function (ALF). The WOMAC is composed of a 5 items pain scale, a 2 items stiffness scale and a 17 items function scale. All 24 items are rated by the patients on a visual-analogue-scale (in cm) from 0 (no symptoms/limitations) to 10 (maximal symptoms/limitations). The ALF scale is a sum of mean timed score (seconds) of three locomotor functions: time taken to walk 8 meters, time taken to accent and decent 7 stairs and time taken to transfer from sitting to standing. The patients were evaluated three times during the study: at baseline, after 4 weeks and at the 8 week endpoint. Measurements were made with the patients barefooted as required by the outcome protocol.
To ensure our ability to detect clinically significant differences, we also used the SF-36 health survey and the Knee Society Score as self-reported secondary outcomes (the latter includes a physical examination subscale).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 45 to 85 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- radiographically assessed osteoarthritis of the knee graded 1 to 4 according to the Kellgren and Lawrence scale
- self reported moderate to severe level pain
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- acute septic arthritis
- predisposition to a tendency to fall
- lack of physical or mental ability to perform or comply with the treatment procedure
- diabetes mellitus
- history of pathological osteoporotic fracture
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| APOS biomechanical gait system | Device | – |
Primary outcome
Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)
Aggregated Locomotor Function (ALF)
2 secondary outcomes
SF-36 health survey
Knee Society Score
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 27 Jun 2007.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 20698991Bar-Ziv Y, Beer Y, Ran Y, Benedict S, Halperin N. A treatment applying a biomechanical device to the feet of patients with knee osteoarthritis results in reduced pain and improved function: a prospective controlled study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010 Aug 10;11:179. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-179.
Related trials for Knee Osteoarthritis
Not yet recruiting
Holistic Healing for Knee Osteoarthritis
Knee Osteoarthritis (Knee OA)
Recruiting
Effect of Anti-inflammatory Diet in Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis, Knee
Active, not recruitingPhase 2/3
Single vs Triple Hyaluronic Acid in Knee Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis, Knee
Not yet recruiting
The Feasibility of a Virtual/Home-based OA Treatment Program in Older Adults With OA and Multimorbidity
Osteoarthritis of the Knee
RecruitingObservational study
Exploring Factors Linked to Worsening Over Time in People With Early-stage Knee Osteoarthritis and Those With Prior Proven Acute Knee Injury.
Knee Osteoarthritis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Nahum Halperin, MD principal investigator
Asaf-Harofeh Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing APOS biomechanical gait system in people with Knee Osteoarthritis, run by Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center at 1 site in Israel.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Jun 2007. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Israel. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00457132, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 27 Jun 2007.