AmputationNCT03374319
Somatotopic Configuration of Distal Residual Limb Tissues in Lower Extremity Amputations
A study testing Modified amputation procedure in people with Amputation, run by Brigham and Women's Hospital at 2 sites in United States.
Trial summary
The hypothesis of this research protocol is that we will be able to redesign the manner in which lower limb amputations are performed so as to include biological actuators that will enable the successful employment of next generation lower extremity prostheses. The specific aims of the project are as follows: 1. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Amputation
- What is being tested?
- Modified amputation procedure
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 50 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 15 Sep 2017to 30 Sep 2024
- 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 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Males or females between the ages of 18 and 65
- Candidates for elective unilateral or bilateral lower extremity amputation at either the above knee or below knee level due to traumatic injury, congenital limb deformities or progressive arthritis
- Must demonstrate sufficiently sound health to undergo the operative procedure, including adequate cardiopulmonary stability to undergo general anesthesia (specifically, American Society of Anesthesiology Class I or II)
- Must have intact inherent wound healing capacity
- Must demonstrate adequate communication skills to convey the status of their sensorimotor recovery throughout the postoperative phase,
- Must exhibit proper level of motivation to comply with postoperative follow up requirements.
Who cannot join
- Patients beyond the stated age restrictions
- Those with severe illness rendering them unable to undergo the operative procedure safely (e.g., unresolved sepsis or cardiopulmonary instability manifest as documented coronary artery disease and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).
- Patients with impairment in inherent wound healing pathways, such as those with primary connective tissue disorders or those on chronic steroid therapy
- Patients with extensive peripheral neuropathies (diabetic or otherwise) that would potentially inhibit appropriate reinnervation of the surgical constructs
- Active smokers; those patients willing to undergo tobacco cessation will need to be completely abstinent from tobacco use for at least 6 weeks preoperatively
- Patients who are unable to provide informed consent and those with a demonstrated history of poor compliance
- Pregnant women will not be considered due to the potential risks of general anesthesia.
- Patients will not be excluded from participation in the study on the grounds of minority status, religious status, race or gender. Non-English speaking patients will not be excluded from the study; interpreters will be made available to them for translation of both verbal interactions and written documents.
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
United States2 sites
Brigham & Women's Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, 02114
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139
About this study
The hypothesis of this research protocol is that we will be able to redesign the manner in which lower limb amputations are performed so as to include biological actuators that will enable the successful employment of next generation lower extremity prostheses. The specific aims of the project are as follows:
- To define a standardized approach to the performance of a novel operative procedure for both below knee (BKA) and above knee (AKA) amputations
- To measure the degree of volitional motor activation and excursion achievable in the residual limb constructs, and to determine the optimal configuration and design of such constructs
- To describe the extent of proprioceptive and other sensory feedback achievable through the employment of these modified surgical techniques
- To validate the functional and somatosensory superiority of the proposed amputation technique over standard approaches to BKA and AKA
- To develop a modified acute postoperative rehabilitation strategy suited to this new surgical approach
Read the detailed description
Historical Background
Lower extremity amputation is among the oldest known surgical procedures in medical history. Despite the passage of over two millennia, however, relatively little has changed in the operative approach. Currently, lower limb amputation is indicated most frequently for lower extremity compromise due to severe peripheral vascular disease, followed in short order by trauma, tumors, infections and congenital limb deficiencies. Estimates of frequency of lower limb amputations range from 30,000-40,000 cases per year in the United States alone.
Normal function of the lower limb is enabled through the interplay of multiple muscle groups acting in concert. Ambulation is a remarkably orchestrated biomechanical process that is dependent upon a complex feedback loop involving the central and peripheral nervous systems and the musculoskeletal system. In their native state, the muscles of the lower extremity exist in a balanced agonist/antagonist milieu in which volitional activation of one muscle leads not only to its contracture, but also passive stretch of its opposite. Changes in muscle tension manifest through these changes lead to stimulation of specialized receptors within the muscle fibers that transmit joint position information to the cerebral cortex. Such feedback, in conjunction with cutaneous sensory information from skin mechanoreceptors, provides us with a sense of limb proprioception that ultimately enables high fidelity limb control, even in the absence of visual feedback.
However, the standard operative approach to lower limb amputation at either the below knee (BKA) or above knee (AKA) level obliterates many of the dynamic relationships characteristic of the uninjured lower extremity. Initial exposure is accomplished through either a stair-step (BKA) or fishmouth (AKA) pattern incision, followed by progressive transection of muscles, vessels, nerves and bone at the level of the incision. Tissues distal to the site of structural transection are discarded, regardless of whether or not there may be viable segments, and the proximal residual muscles are layered over the distal transected bone in order to provide insulation to this exposed osseous surface. The surrounding skin is then advanced over the bone/muscle infrastructure in order to achieve definitive closure. The rudimentary approximation of tissues in the distal limb in these approaches results in a disorganized scar mass in which normal dynamic muscle relationships are destroyed. The uncoupling of native agonist/antagonist muscle pairings results in isometric contraction of residual muscle groups upon volitional activation, producing incomplete, unbalanced neural feedback to the brain that results in aberrant perception of residual limb position. Such disturbed feedback not only results in impaired ambulatory function with prosthetics, but also manifests as pathological sensory perception of the extremity in the form of phantom limb and phantom pain symptomatology.
To date, providers and patients have tolerated the limitations of these approaches due to the fairly simplistic goal of lower limb amputation: to provide a stable, padded surface for prosthesis mounting. Historically, lower limb prostheses have afforded amputees the opportunity to recover at least some measure of ambulatory function. Standard lower limb prostheses currently afford the wearer the walk in a rudimentary fashion, as well as occasionally run. However, such devices have generally not been able to recapitulate the complex biomechanics of the human lower limb due to limited ranges of motion and lack of feedback control. These limitations have resulted in substantially altered kinematics in lower limb amputees that are associated with derangements in energy expenditure profiles that worsen with laterality and ascending level.
An age is dawning, however, in which the capabilities of modern prostheses are broadening remarkably. Technological advances including increasingly miniaturized electronics, wireless communications and ever-refined positional sensors have enabled prosthetic developers to create next-generation bionic limbs with markedly enhanced degrees of freedom over prior models. Such prostheses have been demonstrated to markedly improve the energy expenditure of amputees who utilize them appropriately. Even more advanced prostheses are currently under development that incorporate the ability to provide active intrinsic limb control to facilitate complex motor actions such as dancing and balancing on one leg. In addition, prototype prosthetics are currently being developed that have the potential to offer sensory feedback - both tactile and positional - in a manner never before witnessed. Such prosthetics, while not yet available commercially, are presently being utilized in experimental settings.
However, these technological advancements in the sphere of prosthesis development have not been matched with surgical advancements with regards to management of the residual limb. Classic techniques to lower limb amputation do not provide innervated interfaces that can serve as relays for complex prosthesis control; without such biological actuators in the residual limb to provide conduits for information exchange, next generation prostheses are of little use. Stated another way, next generation prosthetics currently incorporate drivers and sensors capable of providing far more enhanced functionality than ever before witnessed, but standard approaches to limb amputation do not provide a way of effectively linking these prosthetics to their intended beneficiaries. An evolution in the manner in which lower limb amputations are performed is now required - one that will provide a biological interface that will allow lower limb amputees to take advantage of the enhanced capabilities offered by the remarkable prostheses currently under development.
Previous Pre-Clinical or Clinical Studies
Recognition of the increased need for effective neural interfaces for prosthetic limbs has been evidenced by an expanding number of efforts in this sphere over the past decade. Initial efforts to provide high resolution control of distal prostheses were focused primarily on direct and indirect brain interfaces, either through placement of electroencephalographic scalp sensors or implantable parenchymal electrodes, respectively. However, such endeavors have been plagued by poor resolution, inconsistencies in signal acquisition and progressive foreign body reactions leading to impulse degradation over time.
As the limitations of brain interfaces have become more evident, focus has shifted to direct peripheral nerve interfaces including interposed sieves and cuffs designed to transduce electrical signals directly from individual nerve fascicles to distal prostheses. Such monitors have, however, shown little clinical promise due to progressive nerve compression secondary to scarring, as well as significant neurological crosstalk and interference in biological models.
As such, the most promising efforts regarding peripheral nerve interface development are now within the realm of biological systems. The two leading models in this sphere are as follows:
- Targeted Muscle Reinnervation (TMR): TMR is a technique whereby a series of nerve transfers is utilized to reinnervate specific target muscles to create additional prosthetic control sites after proximal limb amputation. These nerve transfers offer intuitive control of distal prostheses because the reinnervated muscles are controlled by the same nerves that once innervated the amputated limb. Signals created by the residual nerves are amplified by the recipient muscles, which are captured by surface electrodes and transduced to the distal prosthesis. TMR procedures have been performed on more than 40 patients to date. Limitations of this technique, however, include the finite number of available electromyographic signal sites due to anatomic constraints and issues with long-term signal fidelity.
- Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interfaces (RPNI): RPNI offers an alternative version of an innervated biological interface. An RPNI is a surgical construct that consists of a non-vascularized segment of muscle that is coapted to a distal motor or sensory nerve ending. Unlike TMR, the RPNI muscle is not recruited from an otherwise normally innervated proximal muscle; instead, it is constructed as a free graft from orthotopically sourced donor tissue. The muscle segment is gradually reinnervated by the redirected nerve ending, which then promotes volitional activation of the muscle segment when triggered by the central nervous system. As in TMR, intuitive control occurs because the reinnervated muscles are controlled by the same nerves that once innervated the amputated limb. Unlike TMR, however, there are no limitations on anatomic sites and there does not appear to be problems with long-term signal fidelity.
While both TMR and RPNIs have demonstrated promise in offering improved functionality to patients who have already undergone amputation, neither technique has been incorporated into a fundamental redesign of the way in which amputations are performed in the first place; in all cases of clinical implementation of TMR or RPNIs reported to date in the literature, these techniques have been employed to further optimize the functionality of patients who have already experienced limb loss.
Rationale and Potential Benefits
This clinical protocol proposes an iteration of the RPNI model, with the intent of incorporating these surgical constructs into the design of lower limb amputations at the time of limb sacrifice. Given the success of this technique to date, the investigators believe that incorporation of innervated muscle segments into residual limb design has the potential to provide lower limb amputees with a biological interface for unprecedented prosthetic motor control that is not only high resolution but also highly intuitive and capable of restoring limb proprioception. In addition, it is anticipated that allowing amputees to have greater control of advanced prostheses may offer the potential to normalize gait kinematics, thereby correcting alterations in energy expenditure that have been previously reported. Such measures hold the promise of optimizing the functional and overall health of lower limb amputees, thereby reducing the morbidity currently associated with the amputee status.
Specific Aims
The hypothesis of this research protocol is that we will be able to redesign the manner in which lower limb amputations are performed so as to include biological actuators that will enable the successful employment of next generation lower extremity prostheses. The specific aims of the project are as follows:
- To define a standardized approach to the performance of a novel operative procedure for both below knee (BKA) and above knee (AKA) amputations
- To measure the degree of volitional motor activation and excursion achievable in the residual limb constructs, and to determine the optimal configuration and design of such constructs
- To describe the extent of proprioceptive and other sensory feedback achievable through the employment of these modified surgical techniques
- To validate the functional and somatosensory superiority of the proposed amputation technique over standard approaches to BKA and AKA
- To develop a modified acute postoperative rehabilitation strategy suited to this new surgical approach
- Conditions
- Amputation
- Being tested
- Modified amputation procedure
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Modified amputation procedureProcedure or surgery
Also called Ewing, AMI, agonist-antagonist myoneural interface
A stair-step (BKA) or fishmouth (AKA) incision will be made. Tibial and fibular or femoral osteotomies will be performed. Segments of the tibialis anterior (TA), peroneus longus (PL), lateral gastrocnemius (LG) and tibialis posterior (TP) muscles will be isolated, as well as the quadriceps (Q) and hamstring (H) groups in the AKA model; if it is not possible to preserve native innervation to these muscles, functional motor units will be constructed from muscle coapted to the appropriate motor nerve endings. The distal tibial and peroneal nerves will be redirected to skin patches in the distal or proximal thigh. Coaptation of the TA/LG, PL/TP and Q/H muscles will then be performed to promote dynamic coupling of these agonist/antagonist pairs. The skin envelope will then be closed in layers over percutaneous drains.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention group | Experimental | Modified amputation procedure Receives: Procedure: Modified amputation procedure |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Motor Unit Innervation
Intact volitional activation of motor constructs, as assessed by electromyographic evidence of activation (muscle potentials measured in mV)
Measured: 0-48 months
Motor Unit Excursion
Intact volitional activation of motor constructs with measurable excursion, as assessed by ultrasound (excursion measured in mm)
Measured: 0-48 months
Proprioception Recovery
Manifestation of functional proprioception with motor unit activation, as evidenced by spatial limb position testing using a modified lower limb prosthesis (accurate limb positioning relative to target measured in mm)
Measured: 0-48 months
Secondary outcomes (6)
Infection Rate
Postoperative infection rate
Measured: 0-48 months
Delayed Wound Healing Rate
Postoperative delayed wound healing rate
Measured: 0-48 months
Operative Revision Rate
Subsequent rate of reoperation
Measured: 0-48 months
Seroma Rate
Postoperative seroma rate
Measured: 0-48 months
Deep Vein Thrombosis Rate
Postoperative deep vein thrombosis rate
Measured: 0-48 months
30-Day Mortality Rate
Postoperative 30-day mortality rate
Measured: 0-48 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted15 Dec 2017
- Study start15 Sep 2017
- Primary completion30 Sep 2024
- Study completion30 Sep 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (11)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for AmputationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Brigham and Women's HospitalThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Brigham and Women's Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts General Hospital
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Matthew Carty, Brigham and Women's Hospital
- Investigators
- Matthew J Carty, MD, Principal investigator, Brigham and Women's Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03374319
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2014p001379
- Other IDs
- CDMRP-160165
- Status last verified
- Oct 2025
- First submitted
- 18 Sep 2017
- Last updated
- 20 Oct 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: No plan for individual participant data sharing
Publications
Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Mar;89(3):422-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005.
PubMed 18295618Waters RL, Perry J, Antonelli D, Hislop H. Energy cost of walking of amputees: the influence of level of amputation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Jan;58(1):42-6.
PubMed 1249111Herr HM, Grabowski AM. Bionic ankle-foot prosthesis normalizes walking gait for persons with leg amputation. Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Feb 7;279(1728):457-64. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1194. Epub 2011 Jul 13.
PubMed 21752817Schultz AE, Kuiken TA. Neural interfaces for control of upper limb prostheses: the state of the art and future possibilities. PM R. 2011 Jan;3(1):55-67. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.06.016.
PubMed 21257135Shih JJ, Krusienski DJ, Wolpaw JR. Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012 Mar;87(3):268-79. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.12.008. Epub 2012 Feb 10.
PubMed 22325364Kung TA, Bueno RA, Alkhalefah GK, Langhals NB, Urbanchek MG, Cederna PS. Innovations in prosthetic interfaces for the upper extremity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Dec;132(6):1515-1523. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a97e5f.
PubMed 24281580Navarro X, Krueger TB, Lago N, Micera S, Stieglitz T, Dario P. A critical review of interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of neuroprostheses and hybrid bionic systems. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2005 Sep;10(3):229-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1085-9489.2005.10303.x.
PubMed 16221284Dumanian GA, Ko JH, O'Shaughnessy KD, Kim PS, Wilson CJ, Kuiken TA. Targeted reinnervation for transhumeral amputees: current surgical technique and update on results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Sep;124(3):863-869. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b038c9.
PubMed 19730305Kuiken TA, Li G, Lock BA, Lipschutz RD, Miller LA, Stubblefield KA, Englehart KB. Targeted muscle reinnervation for real-time myoelectric control of multifunction artificial arms. JAMA. 2009 Feb 11;301(6):619-28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.116.
PubMed 19211469Li YG, Chen XJ, Zhang YZ, Han DZ, Yan DX, Gao GZ, Zhao XC, Sun WJ. Three-dimensional digitalized virtual planning for retrograde sural neurovascular island flaps: a comparative study. Burns. 2014 Aug;40(5):974-80. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2013.10.009. Epub 2013 Nov 26.
PubMed 24290858Srinivasan SS, Gutierrez-Arango S, Teng AC, Israel E, Song H, Bailey ZK, Carty MJ, Freed LE, Herr HM. Neural interfacing architecture enables enhanced motor control and residual limb functionality postamputation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Mar 2;118(9):e2019555118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2019555118.
PubMed 33593940
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 20 Oct 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Somatotopic Configuration of Distal Residual Limb Tissues in Lower Extremity Amputations
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03374319
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2014p001379
- Conditions
- Amputation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Brigham and Women's HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts General Hospital
- Study start
- 15 Sep 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Sep 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Sep 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 15 Dec 2017 (actual)
- 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.
The hypothesis of this research protocol is that we will be able to redesign the manner in which lower limb amputations are performed so as to include biological actuators that will enable the successful employment of next generation lower extremity prostheses. The specific aims of the project are as follows:
- To define a standardized approach to the performance of a novel operative procedure for both below knee (BKA) and above knee (AKA) amputations
- To measure the degree of volitional motor activation and excursion achievable in the residual limb constructs, and to determine the optimal configuration and design of such constructs
- To describe the extent of proprioceptive and other sensory feedback achievable through the employment of these modified surgical techniques
- To validate the functional and somatosensory superiority of the proposed amputation technique over standard approaches to BKA and AKA
- To develop a modified acute postoperative rehabilitation strategy suited to this new surgical approach
Detailed description
Historical Background
Lower extremity amputation is among the oldest known surgical procedures in medical history. Despite the passage of over two millennia, however, relatively little has changed in the operative approach. Currently, lower limb amputation is indicated most frequently for lower extremity compromise due to severe peripheral vascular disease, followed in short order by trauma, tumors, infections and congenital limb deficiencies. Estimates of frequency of lower limb amputations range from 30,000-40,000 cases per year in the United States alone.
Normal function of the lower limb is enabled through the interplay of multiple muscle groups acting in concert. Ambulation is a remarkably orchestrated biomechanical process that is dependent upon a complex feedback loop involving the central and peripheral nervous systems and the musculoskeletal system. In their native state, the muscles of the lower extremity exist in a balanced agonist/antagonist milieu in which volitional activation of one muscle leads not only to its contracture, but also passive stretch of its opposite. Changes in muscle tension manifest through these changes lead to stimulation of specialized receptors within the muscle fibers that transmit joint position information to the cerebral cortex. Such feedback, in conjunction with cutaneous sensory information from skin mechanoreceptors, provides us with a sense of limb proprioception that ultimately enables high fidelity limb control, even in the absence of visual feedback.
However, the standard operative approach to lower limb amputation at either the below knee (BKA) or above knee (AKA) level obliterates many of the dynamic relationships characteristic of the uninjured lower extremity. Initial exposure is accomplished through either a stair-step (BKA) or fishmouth (AKA) pattern incision, followed by progressive transection of muscles, vessels, nerves and bone at the level of the incision. Tissues distal to the site of structural transection are discarded, regardless of whether or not there may be viable segments, and the proximal residual muscles are layered over the distal transected bone in order to provide insulation to this exposed osseous surface. The surrounding skin is then advanced over the bone/muscle infrastructure in order to achieve definitive closure. The rudimentary approximation of tissues in the distal limb in these approaches results in a disorganized scar mass in which normal dynamic muscle relationships are destroyed. The uncoupling of native agonist/antagonist muscle pairings results in isometric contraction of residual muscle groups upon volitional activation, producing incomplete, unbalanced neural feedback to the brain that results in aberrant perception of residual limb position. Such disturbed feedback not only results in impaired ambulatory function with prosthetics, but also manifests as pathological sensory perception of the extremity in the form of phantom limb and phantom pain symptomatology.
To date, providers and patients have tolerated the limitations of these approaches due to the fairly simplistic goal of lower limb amputation: to provide a stable, padded surface for prosthesis mounting. Historically, lower limb prostheses have afforded amputees the opportunity to recover at least some measure of ambulatory function. Standard lower limb prostheses currently afford the wearer the walk in a rudimentary fashion, as well as occasionally run. However, such devices have generally not been able to recapitulate the complex biomechanics of the human lower limb due to limited ranges of motion and lack of feedback control. These limitations have resulted in substantially altered kinematics in lower limb amputees that are associated with derangements in energy expenditure profiles that worsen with laterality and ascending level.
An age is dawning, however, in which the capabilities of modern prostheses are broadening remarkably. Technological advances including increasingly miniaturized electronics, wireless communications and ever-refined positional sensors have enabled prosthetic developers to create next-generation bionic limbs with markedly enhanced degrees of freedom over prior models. Such prostheses have been demonstrated to markedly improve the energy expenditure of amputees who utilize them appropriately. Even more advanced prostheses are currently under development that incorporate the ability to provide active intrinsic limb control to facilitate complex motor actions such as dancing and balancing on one leg. In addition, prototype prosthetics are currently being developed that have the potential to offer sensory feedback - both tactile and positional - in a manner never before witnessed. Such prosthetics, while not yet available commercially, are presently being utilized in experimental settings.
However, these technological advancements in the sphere of prosthesis development have not been matched with surgical advancements with regards to management of the residual limb. Classic techniques to lower limb amputation do not provide innervated interfaces that can serve as relays for complex prosthesis control; without such biological actuators in the residual limb to provide conduits for information exchange, next generation prostheses are of little use. Stated another way, next generation prosthetics currently incorporate drivers and sensors capable of providing far more enhanced functionality than ever before witnessed, but standard approaches to limb amputation do not provide a way of effectively linking these prosthetics to their intended beneficiaries. An evolution in the manner in which lower limb amputations are performed is now required - one that will provide a biological interface that will allow lower limb amputees to take advantage of the enhanced capabilities offered by the remarkable prostheses currently under development.
Previous Pre-Clinical or Clinical Studies
Recognition of the increased need for effective neural interfaces for prosthetic limbs has been evidenced by an expanding number of efforts in this sphere over the past decade. Initial efforts to provide high resolution control of distal prostheses were focused primarily on direct and indirect brain interfaces, either through placement of electroencephalographic scalp sensors or implantable parenchymal electrodes, respectively. However, such endeavors have been plagued by poor resolution, inconsistencies in signal acquisition and progressive foreign body reactions leading to impulse degradation over time.
As the limitations of brain interfaces have become more evident, focus has shifted to direct peripheral nerve interfaces including interposed sieves and cuffs designed to transduce electrical signals directly from individual nerve fascicles to distal prostheses. Such monitors have, however, shown little clinical promise due to progressive nerve compression secondary to scarring, as well as significant neurological crosstalk and interference in biological models.
As such, the most promising efforts regarding peripheral nerve interface development are now within the realm of biological systems. The two leading models in this sphere are as follows:
- Targeted Muscle Reinnervation (TMR): TMR is a technique whereby a series of nerve transfers is utilized to reinnervate specific target muscles to create additional prosthetic control sites after proximal limb amputation. These nerve transfers offer intuitive control of distal prostheses because the reinnervated muscles are controlled by the same nerves that once innervated the amputated limb. Signals created by the residual nerves are amplified by the recipient muscles, which are captured by surface electrodes and transduced to the distal prosthesis. TMR procedures have been performed on more than 40 patients to date. Limitations of this technique, however, include the finite number of available electromyographic signal sites due to anatomic constraints and issues with long-term signal fidelity.
- Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interfaces (RPNI): RPNI offers an alternative version of an innervated biological interface. An RPNI is a surgical construct that consists of a non-vascularized segment of muscle that is coapted to a distal motor or sensory nerve ending. Unlike TMR, the RPNI muscle is not recruited from an otherwise normally innervated proximal muscle; instead, it is constructed as a free graft from orthotopically sourced donor tissue. The muscle segment is gradually reinnervated by the redirected nerve ending, which then promotes volitional activation of the muscle segment when triggered by the central nervous system. As in TMR, intuitive control occurs because the reinnervated muscles are controlled by the same nerves that once innervated the amputated limb. Unlike TMR, however, there are no limitations on anatomic sites and there does not appear to be problems with long-term signal fidelity.
While both TMR and RPNIs have demonstrated promise in offering improved functionality to patients who have already undergone amputation, neither technique has been incorporated into a fundamental redesign of the way in which amputations are performed in the first place; in all cases of clinical implementation of TMR or RPNIs reported to date in the literature, these techniques have been employed to further optimize the functionality of patients who have already experienced limb loss.
Rationale and Potential Benefits
This clinical protocol proposes an iteration of the RPNI model, with the intent of incorporating these surgical constructs into the design of lower limb amputations at the time of limb sacrifice. Given the success of this technique to date, the investigators believe that incorporation of innervated muscle segments into residual limb design has the potential to provide lower limb amputees with a biological interface for unprecedented prosthetic motor control that is not only high resolution but also highly intuitive and capable of restoring limb proprioception. In addition, it is anticipated that allowing amputees to have greater control of advanced prostheses may offer the potential to normalize gait kinematics, thereby correcting alterations in energy expenditure that have been previously reported. Such measures hold the promise of optimizing the functional and overall health of lower limb amputees, thereby reducing the morbidity currently associated with the amputee status.
Specific Aims
The hypothesis of this research protocol is that we will be able to redesign the manner in which lower limb amputations are performed so as to include biological actuators that will enable the successful employment of next generation lower extremity prostheses. The specific aims of the project are as follows:
- To define a standardized approach to the performance of a novel operative procedure for both below knee (BKA) and above knee (AKA) amputations
- To measure the degree of volitional motor activation and excursion achievable in the residual limb constructs, and to determine the optimal configuration and design of such constructs
- To describe the extent of proprioceptive and other sensory feedback achievable through the employment of these modified surgical techniques
- To validate the functional and somatosensory superiority of the proposed amputation technique over standard approaches to BKA and AKA
- To develop a modified acute postoperative rehabilitation strategy suited to this new surgical approach
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention group | Experimental | Procedure: Modified amputation procedureModified amputation procedure |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Males or females between the ages of 18 and 65
- Candidates for elective unilateral or bilateral lower extremity amputation at either the above knee or below knee level due to traumatic injury, congenital limb deformities or progressive arthritis
- Must demonstrate sufficiently sound health to undergo the operative procedure, including adequate cardiopulmonary stability to undergo general anesthesia (specifically, American Society of Anesthesiology Class I or II)
- Must have intact inherent wound healing capacity
- Must demonstrate adequate communication skills to convey the status of their sensorimotor recovery throughout the postoperative phase,
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Patients beyond the stated age restrictions
- Those with severe illness rendering them unable to undergo the operative procedure safely (e.g., unresolved sepsis or cardiopulmonary instability manifest as documented coronary artery disease and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).
- Patients with impairment in inherent wound healing pathways, such as those with primary connective tissue disorders or those on chronic steroid therapy
- Patients with extensive peripheral neuropathies (diabetic or otherwise) that would potentially inhibit appropriate reinnervation of the surgical constructs
- Active smokers; those patients willing to undergo tobacco cessation will need to be completely abstinent from tobacco use for at least 6 weeks preoperatively
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Modified amputation procedureAlso: Ewing, AMI, agonist-antagonist myoneural interfaceA stair-step (BKA) or fishmouth (AKA) incision will be made. Tibial and fibular or femoral osteotomies will be performed. Segments of the tibialis anterior (TA), peroneus longus (PL), lateral gastrocnemius (LG) and tibialis posterior (TP) muscles will be isolated, as well as the quadriceps (Q) and hamstring (H) groups in the AKA model; if it is not possible to preserve native innervation to these muscles, functional motor units will be constructed from muscle coapted to the appropriate motor nerve endings. The distal tibial and peroneal nerves will be redirected to skin patches in the distal or proximal thigh. Coaptation of the TA/LG, PL/TP and Q/H muscles will then be performed to promote dynamic coupling of these agonist/antagonist pairs. The skin envelope will then be closed in layers over percutaneous drains. | Procedure or surgery | Intervention group |
Primary outcome
Motor Unit Innervation
Time frame: 0-48 months
Intact volitional activation of motor constructs, as assessed by electromyographic evidence of activation (muscle potentials measured in mV)
Motor Unit Excursion
Time frame: 0-48 months
Intact volitional activation of motor constructs with measurable excursion, as assessed by ultrasound (excursion measured in mm)
Proprioception Recovery
Time frame: 0-48 months
Manifestation of functional proprioception with motor unit activation, as evidenced by spatial limb position testing using a modified lower limb prosthesis (accurate limb positioning relative to target measured in mm)
6 secondary outcomes
Infection Rate
Time frame: 0-48 months
Delayed Wound Healing Rate
Time frame: 0-48 months
Operative Revision Rate
Time frame: 0-48 months
Seroma Rate
Time frame: 0-48 months
Deep Vein Thrombosis Rate
Time frame: 0-48 months
30-Day Mortality Rate
Time frame: 0-48 months
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 20 Oct 2025.
- Background: PubMed 18295618Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Mar;89(3):422-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005.
- Background: PubMed 1249111Waters RL, Perry J, Antonelli D, Hislop H. Energy cost of walking of amputees: the influence of level of amputation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Jan;58(1):42-6.
- Background: PubMed 21752817Herr HM, Grabowski AM. Bionic ankle-foot prosthesis normalizes walking gait for persons with leg amputation. Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Feb 7;279(1728):457-64. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1194. Epub 2011 Jul 13.
- Background: PubMed 21257135Schultz AE, Kuiken TA. Neural interfaces for control of upper limb prostheses: the state of the art and future possibilities. PM R. 2011 Jan;3(1):55-67. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.06.016.
- Background: PubMed 22325364Shih JJ, Krusienski DJ, Wolpaw JR. Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012 Mar;87(3):268-79. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.12.008. Epub 2012 Feb 10.
- Background: PubMed 24281580Kung TA, Bueno RA, Alkhalefah GK, Langhals NB, Urbanchek MG, Cederna PS. Innovations in prosthetic interfaces for the upper extremity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Dec;132(6):1515-1523. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a97e5f.
- Background: PubMed 16221284Navarro X, Krueger TB, Lago N, Micera S, Stieglitz T, Dario P. A critical review of interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of neuroprostheses and hybrid bionic systems. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2005 Sep;10(3):229-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1085-9489.2005.10303.x.
- Background: PubMed 19730305Dumanian GA, Ko JH, O'Shaughnessy KD, Kim PS, Wilson CJ, Kuiken TA. Targeted reinnervation for transhumeral amputees: current surgical technique and update on results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Sep;124(3):863-869. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b038c9.
- Background: PubMed 19211469Kuiken TA, Li G, Lock BA, Lipschutz RD, Miller LA, Stubblefield KA, Englehart KB. Targeted muscle reinnervation for real-time myoelectric control of multifunction artificial arms. JAMA. 2009 Feb 11;301(6):619-28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.116.
- Background: PubMed 24290858Li YG, Chen XJ, Zhang YZ, Han DZ, Yan DX, Gao GZ, Zhao XC, Sun WJ. Three-dimensional digitalized virtual planning for retrograde sural neurovascular island flaps: a comparative study. Burns. 2014 Aug;40(5):974-80. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2013.10.009. Epub 2013 Nov 26.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 33593940Srinivasan SS, Gutierrez-Arango S, Teng AC, Israel E, Song H, Bailey ZK, Carty MJ, Freed LE, Herr HM. Neural interfacing architecture enables enhanced motor control and residual limb functionality postamputation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Mar 2;118(9):e2019555118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2019555118.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. No plan for individual participant data sharing
Related trials for Amputation
RecruitingObservational study
Cryo NerVe Block Extremity AmputatioN RegIStry for Post Operative and pHantom Limb Pain
Amputation, Amputation of Lower Limb
RecruitingObservational study
CNS Changes Following Upper Limb Loss
Amputation, Congenital, Upper Limb; Amelia
Recruiting
Hand Prosthesis Usability and Performance
Amputation
Recruiting
E-Socket, Diagnostic Monitoring
Trans-Tibial Amputation
RecruitingObservational study
Early Postoperative Pain Following a Limb Amputation
Amputation, Surgical, Pain Management
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.
Matthew J Carty, MD principal investigator
Brigham and Women's Hospital
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Modified amputation procedure in people with Amputation, run by Brigham and Women's Hospital at 2 sites in United States.
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 6 inclusion and 8 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 20 Oct 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in United States. 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?
Motor Unit Innervation (time frame: 0-48 months). The study lists 3 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 NCT03374319, which also lists 11 linked publications.
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 20 Oct 2025.