Lower Extremity AmputationNCT03703232
Community Walking Trials: Comparing Prosthetic Feet
A study testing Investigational prosthetic foot in people with Lower Extremity Amputation, run by University of Washington at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of the study is to obtain performance measurements and participant feedback about use of an investigational prosthetic foot compared to the participant's usual prosthetic foot. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 16 to 85 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Lower Extremity Amputation
- What is being tested?
- Investigational prosthetic foot
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 31 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 15 Mar 2016to 30 Jun 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
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 16 to 85 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Unilateral below knee amputation, use a prosthetic foot for at least 1 year
- Ability to walk 400 meters on level ground without using a walking aid and without an increase in pain
- Ability to read, write, and comprehend English
Who cannot join
- Residual skin breakdown
- Weight over 300 lbs
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: An Adaptable Foot Prosthesis for People With Lower Extremity Amputations - Community Experiences
The purpose of the study is to obtain performance measurements and participant feedback about use of an investigational prosthetic foot compared to the participant's usual prosthetic foot. To accomplish this, the study will use a combination of laboratory motion analysis, functional tests, and community mobility trials where participants complete questionnaires and interviews about use of an investigational prosthetic foot compared to the participant's usual prosthetic foot.
Individuals with amputations that participate in the (optional) motion analysis sub-study at the University of Washington will complete forward walking, side-step, and across river rock with usual foot (session 1), and also with the investigational foot locked and unlocked (session 2) after an accommodation period of between 1-4 weeks. The participants will rate their experiences using socket comfort score and the socket pressure score.
Control participants recruited at the University of Washington to provide information about performance for people without amputation will go through the consenting process, then will be asked to complete forward walking, Figure-of-8 Walk Test, Narrowing Beam Walking Test, side-step, and walking across river rock surface. These tests will be conducted at a single session.
Read the detailed description
If the participant with an amputation is eligible and wishes to participate, an appointment will be made for the person to come to the University of Washington Motion Analysis Lab or WillowWood, in Mt. Sterling, Ohio. The participant will meet with a researcher and clinical prosthetist to go through the consenting process. At that time, participants will complete the demographic data questionnaire.
The prosthetist will assess the condition and fit of the participant's current prosthesis for alignment, fit, and condition. The prosthetist will also inspect the participant's residual limb for skin condition. People presenting with significant skin breakdown will not be eligible to participate. The prosthetist will also determine how best to set up the current socket system with the investigational foot at that time.
Motion analysis trials of the investigational foot compared to the participant's usual foot. Participants will complete forward walking, side-step, and across river rock with usual foot (session 1), and also with the investigational foot locked and unlocked (session 2) after an accommodation period of between 1-4 weeks. The UW will conduct optically-based motion analysis using an 8-camera Qualisys motion capture system 4 embedded tri-axial ground reaction force platforms and a river rock-substrate surface that is parallel to the main motion capture space. For all motion analysis tests, retroreflective markers are taped to anatomical landmarks that are compatible with Visual 3-D kinematic modeling software. Motion data are captured at 120 Hz.
Motion Analysis Tests Forward walking. Participants will walk at a self-selected speed on a level surface for 10 m. In the center of the calibrated walking area, the participant will step on force plates. Marker position and reaction forces will be recorded for 2 sequential steps of the prosthetic side for participants with amputations, or matched side for control subjects. After a practice test, 3 tests where the prosthetic side successfully contacts the force plates will be recorded.
Side-step. Participants will perform the test in a similar manner to forward walking but will instead move laterally over the 10 m surface and across the centrally placed force plates. The order of side-stepping to the right or left will be randomly assigned. Participants will be asked not to cross-over their feet. After a practice test, 3 tests in each direction, where the prosthetic side or matched side successfully contacts the force plates, will be recorded.
Walking across river rock surface. Participants will walk in a direct path through the center of the river rock. They will be wearing a safety harness and will be attached to an overhead moving protection system. Participants will use the visual field limiting goggles during the river rock walking test. After practice tests, 3 tests will be recorded.
Modified socket comfort score and pressure score. Following each test protocol, participants will be asked to rate the socket comfort during the activity from 0 to 10 (with 0 being the least comfortable and 10 being the most comfortable imaginable) and pressures of the prosthetic socket on their residual limb during the activity from 0 to 10 (with zero being none and 10 being the highest imaginable). Participants will be asked to qualify the score with subjective comments.
Community Walking Trials (CWT) of the Investigational foot. To assess the benefit of the investigational foot, a combination of subjective and objective measures will be collected following 2- to 4-week periods of use. During the first laboratory visit, subjects will complete functional tasks with their existing prosthesis, as well as complete the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) and the Comprehensive Lower Limb Amputee Socket Survey (CLASS). Next, they will be fit with the investigational foot and complete a 2- to 4-week at-home use period. A team member will contact the participant about one week after they start using the investigational foot to see how things are going and if there are any issues or problems to address (such as is the degree of stiffness appropriate) that may prompt a re-fitting. If this occurs, the 2- to 4-week at-home use period will re-start, increasing the participant's total amount of time in the study. During at-home use, participants will be prompted to complete a daily, structured, online logbook formatted in REDCap.
During the second visit, subjects will again complete the PEQ and CLASS, and repeat the same functional tasks as at the first visit but while wearing the investigational foot (locked and unlocked linkage). During this visit, a semi-structured interview will be conducted and recorded using Zoom. At the end of the visit, subjects will be re-fit with their original prosthetic foot and will complete another 2- to 4-week at-home use period with logbook entries before completing study questionnaires and a final interview.
Quantitative instruments - Community Walking Trials PEQ Subscales: The PEQ is a 9-scale instrument that has good psychometric properties and has been validated. The PEQ subscales vary from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). PEQ subscales of residual limb health, ambulation, utility, and sounds were selected for this study and comprise a total of 24 visual analogue scale questions.
CLASS: The intent of the CLASS is to provide greater insight into the cause of socket dissatisfaction compared to the Socket Comfort Score. To accomplish this, the CLASS includes 4 subcategories; 1) stability, 2) suspension, 3) comfort, and 4) appearance. Each subcategory contains 3-4 items scored using a 5-point scale that relate to common tasks such as standing, sitting, walking, and ascending and descending stairs.
Semi-structured interview: Participants' lived experiences using the investigational foot in comparison to the participant's usual foot will be collected using qualitative research methods. There will be an exit interview using open-ended questions to obtain qualitative data on foot performance and comparisons of foot prostheses. The interviews will be audio recorded. Interviews may be conducted remotely.
Daily Log Book: During home use of the participant's usual foot and the investigational foot, participants will keep an activity log (completed either electronically or on paper) that encourages descriptions of activities, including strengths and limitations of foot performance.
Functional Tasks Figure-of-8 Walk Test: Subjects will begin the task standing between the 2 cones. The subject will walk a figure-of-8 course 3 times for each condition at their self-selected pace and stop when they return to the start position. Time to complete the test and number of steps will be collected.
Narrowing Beam Walking Test:
The test consists of walking across a beam that has 4, 6-foot long sections, each one narrower than the previous one. The narrowing beam is 2" above the floor. When ready, the subject will begin walking along the beam while keeping their feet pointed in the direction of the beam (no side-stepping allowed). Subjects must keep their arms crossed in front of their body to eliminate the use of their arms to maintain balance. For this test of balance, the distance along the beam will be measured.
- Conditions
- Lower Extremity Amputation
- Being tested
- Investigational prosthetic foot
- Keywords
- prosthesis, prosthetic, foot, ankle, mobility, amputee
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Investigational prosthetic footDevice
Individuals will complete 2-4 weeks of community walking with the investigational foot and compare to their regular prosthetic foot.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Lower extremity amputees | Other | Community walking trial comparing usual prosthetic foot with investigational prosthetic foot. Receives: Device: Investigational prosthetic foot |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ): Ambulation Sub-Scale
Self-report questionnaire. PEQ Subscales: The PEQ is a 9-scale instrument that has good psychometric properties and has been validated. The PEQ subscales have a range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). PEQ subscales of residual limb health, ambulation, utility, and sounds were selected for this study and comprise a total of 24 visual analogue scale questions. ICC estimates for these subscales for the first and second administration ranged from 0.79 to 0.9.
Measured: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Comprehensive Lower Extremity Amputee Socket Survey (CLASS): Comfort Scale
The intent of the CLASS is to provide greater insight into the cause of socket dissatisfaction compared to the Socket Comfort Score. To accomplish this, the CLASS includes 4 subcategories; 1) stability, 2) suspension, 3) comfort, and 4) appearance. Each subcategory contains 3-4 items scored using a 5-point scale that relate to common tasks such as standing, sitting, walking, and ascending and descending stairs.
Scale range: 0-60 Values: 0 = worst outcome; 60 = best outcome Subscales:0-16
Measured: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Figure-of-8 Walking Test: Time
The F8W was developed to represent walking skills used in everyday life, involving straight and curved paths in both right and left directions. It has been validated in older adult populations with mobility disability. Subjects will begin the task standing between the 2 cones. The subject will walk a figure 8 course 3 times for each condition at their self-selected pace and stop when they return to the start position. The outcomes of the test are the time to complete the course.
Measured: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Daily Activity Log: Scale Measuring How Prosthesis Helps or Hinders When Walking on a Challenging Surface
Difference between investigational foot and usual foot of the average daily values of the visual analog scale of participant's perception of gait on challenging surface.
Scale range: 0-100 Values: 0 = worst outcome; 100 = best outcome
Measured: Daily for 2-4 weeks
Secondary outcomes (7)
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ): Residual Limb Health Subscale
Self-report questionnaire. PEQ Subscales: The PEQ is a 9-scale instrument that has good psychometric properties and has been validated. The PEQ subscales have a range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). PEQ subscales of residual limb health, ambulation, utility, and sounds were selected for this study and comprise a total of 24 visual analogue scale questions. ICC estimates for these subscales for the first and second administration ranged from 0.79 to 0.9.
Measured: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Comprehensive Lower Extremity Amputee Socket Survey (CLASS): Stability Subscale
The intent of the CLASS Stability Subscale is to provide greater insight into the cause of socket dissatisfaction compared to the Socket Comfort Score. This subcategory of the CLASS contains 4 items scored using a 5-point scale that relate to common tasks such as standing, sitting, walking, and ascending and descending stairs.
Values: 0 = worst outcome; 16 = best outcome
Measured: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Narrowing Beam Walking Test: Distance Travelled
The Narrowing Beam Walking Test was developed to measure balance in lower extremity amputees (LEA) and it was validated in LEPU with and without a history of falls. The test consists of walking across a beam that has 4, 6-foot long sections, each one more narrow than the previous one. The narrowing beam is 2" above the floor. Subjects must keep their arms crossed in front of their body to eliminate the use of their arms to maintain balance. The distance of the furthest point of contact from the start of the beam is used as the outcome for the test.
Measured: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B). Primary analysis uses B minus A1.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Daily Activity Log: Balance Confidence
Difference between investigational foot and usual foot of the average daily values of the visual analog scale of participant's perception of balance confidence.
Scale range: 0-100 Values: 0 = worst outcome; 100 = best outcome
Measured: Average of daily measurements for 2-4 weeks using the investigational foot (B) and 2-4 weeks using the usual foot (A2). Outcome is B- A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ): Utility Subscale
Self-report questionnaire. PEQ Subscales: The PEQ is a 9-scale instrument that has good psychometric properties and has been validated. The PEQ subscales have a range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). PEQ subscales of residual limb health, ambulation, utility, and sounds were selected for this study and comprise a total of 24 visual analogue scale questions. ICC estimates for these subscales for the first and second administration ranged from 0.79 to 0.9.
Measured: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ): Sound Subscale
Self-report questionnaire. PEQ Subscales: The PEQ is a 9-scale instrument that has good psychometric properties and has been validated. The PEQ subscales have a range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). PEQ subscales of residual limb health, ambulation, utility, and sounds were selected for this study and comprise a total of 24 visual analogue scale questions. ICC estimates for these subscales for the first and second administration ranged from 0.79 to 0.9.
Measured: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Comprehensive Lower Extremity Amputee Socket Survey (CLASS): Suspension Subscales
The intent of the CLASS Suspension is to provide greater insight into the cause of socket dissatisfaction compared to the Socket Comfort Score. This subcategory contains 4 items scored using a 5-point scale that relate to common tasks such as standing, sitting, walking, and ascending and descending stairs.
Scale range: 0-16 Values: 0 = worst outcome; 16 = best outcome
Measured: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Oct 2018
- Study start15 Mar 2016
- Primary completion30 Jun 2021
- Study completion30 Jun 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Lower Extremity AmputationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of WashingtonThe 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
- Device feasibility
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Model description
- The research design is an A-B-A design, where the A condition is the participant's usual prosthetic foot and the B condition is the investigational foot.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 31 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Washington
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- WillowWood Global LLC
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Murray Maitland, University of Washington
- Investigators
- Murray Maitland, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Washington
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03703232
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- STUDY00001109
- Status last verified
- Jan 2024
- First submitted
- 3 Apr 2018
- Last updated
- 21 Jun 2024
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, del Aguila M, Larsen J, Boone D. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Aug;79(8):931-8. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(98)90090-9.
PubMed 9710165
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Jun 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- An Adaptable Foot Prosthesis for People With Lower Extremity Amputations - Community Experiences
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03703232
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- STUDY00001109
- Conditions
- Lower Extremity Amputation
- Keywords
- prosthesis, prosthetic, foot, ankle, mobility, amputee
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 31 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of WashingtonUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- WillowWood Global LLC
- Study start
- 15 Mar 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 11 Oct 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 21 Jun 2024
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of the study is to obtain performance measurements and participant feedback about use of an investigational prosthetic foot compared to the participant's usual prosthetic foot. To accomplish this, the study will use a combination of laboratory motion analysis, functional tests, and community mobility trials where participants complete questionnaires and interviews about use of an investigational prosthetic foot compared to the participant's usual prosthetic foot.
Individuals with amputations that participate in the (optional) motion analysis sub-study at the University of Washington will complete forward walking, side-step, and across river rock with usual foot (session 1), and also with the investigational foot locked and unlocked (session 2) after an accommodation period of between 1-4 weeks. The participants will rate their experiences using socket comfort score and the socket pressure score.
Control participants recruited at the University of Washington to provide information about performance for people without amputation will go through the consenting process, then will be asked to complete forward walking, Figure-of-8 Walk Test, Narrowing Beam Walking Test, side-step, and walking across river rock surface. These tests will be conducted at a single session.
Detailed description
If the participant with an amputation is eligible and wishes to participate, an appointment will be made for the person to come to the University of Washington Motion Analysis Lab or WillowWood, in Mt. Sterling, Ohio. The participant will meet with a researcher and clinical prosthetist to go through the consenting process. At that time, participants will complete the demographic data questionnaire.
The prosthetist will assess the condition and fit of the participant's current prosthesis for alignment, fit, and condition. The prosthetist will also inspect the participant's residual limb for skin condition. People presenting with significant skin breakdown will not be eligible to participate. The prosthetist will also determine how best to set up the current socket system with the investigational foot at that time.
Motion analysis trials of the investigational foot compared to the participant's usual foot. Participants will complete forward walking, side-step, and across river rock with usual foot (session 1), and also with the investigational foot locked and unlocked (session 2) after an accommodation period of between 1-4 weeks. The UW will conduct optically-based motion analysis using an 8-camera Qualisys motion capture system 4 embedded tri-axial ground reaction force platforms and a river rock-substrate surface that is parallel to the main motion capture space. For all motion analysis tests, retroreflective markers are taped to anatomical landmarks that are compatible with Visual 3-D kinematic modeling software. Motion data are captured at 120 Hz.
Motion Analysis Tests Forward walking. Participants will walk at a self-selected speed on a level surface for 10 m. In the center of the calibrated walking area, the participant will step on force plates. Marker position and reaction forces will be recorded for 2 sequential steps of the prosthetic side for participants with amputations, or matched side for control subjects. After a practice test, 3 tests where the prosthetic side successfully contacts the force plates will be recorded.
Side-step. Participants will perform the test in a similar manner to forward walking but will instead move laterally over the 10 m surface and across the centrally placed force plates. The order of side-stepping to the right or left will be randomly assigned. Participants will be asked not to cross-over their feet. After a practice test, 3 tests in each direction, where the prosthetic side or matched side successfully contacts the force plates, will be recorded.
Walking across river rock surface. Participants will walk in a direct path through the center of the river rock. They will be wearing a safety harness and will be attached to an overhead moving protection system. Participants will use the visual field limiting goggles during the river rock walking test. After practice tests, 3 tests will be recorded.
Modified socket comfort score and pressure score. Following each test protocol, participants will be asked to rate the socket comfort during the activity from 0 to 10 (with 0 being the least comfortable and 10 being the most comfortable imaginable) and pressures of the prosthetic socket on their residual limb during the activity from 0 to 10 (with zero being none and 10 being the highest imaginable). Participants will be asked to qualify the score with subjective comments.
Community Walking Trials (CWT) of the Investigational foot. To assess the benefit of the investigational foot, a combination of subjective and objective measures will be collected following 2- to 4-week periods of use. During the first laboratory visit, subjects will complete functional tasks with their existing prosthesis, as well as complete the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) and the Comprehensive Lower Limb Amputee Socket Survey (CLASS). Next, they will be fit with the investigational foot and complete a 2- to 4-week at-home use period. A team member will contact the participant about one week after they start using the investigational foot to see how things are going and if there are any issues or problems to address (such as is the degree of stiffness appropriate) that may prompt a re-fitting. If this occurs, the 2- to 4-week at-home use period will re-start, increasing the participant's total amount of time in the study. During at-home use, participants will be prompted to complete a daily, structured, online logbook formatted in REDCap.
During the second visit, subjects will again complete the PEQ and CLASS, and repeat the same functional tasks as at the first visit but while wearing the investigational foot (locked and unlocked linkage). During this visit, a semi-structured interview will be conducted and recorded using Zoom. At the end of the visit, subjects will be re-fit with their original prosthetic foot and will complete another 2- to 4-week at-home use period with logbook entries before completing study questionnaires and a final interview.
Quantitative instruments - Community Walking Trials PEQ Subscales: The PEQ is a 9-scale instrument that has good psychometric properties and has been validated. The PEQ subscales vary from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). PEQ subscales of residual limb health, ambulation, utility, and sounds were selected for this study and comprise a total of 24 visual analogue scale questions.
CLASS: The intent of the CLASS is to provide greater insight into the cause of socket dissatisfaction compared to the Socket Comfort Score. To accomplish this, the CLASS includes 4 subcategories; 1) stability, 2) suspension, 3) comfort, and 4) appearance. Each subcategory contains 3-4 items scored using a 5-point scale that relate to common tasks such as standing, sitting, walking, and ascending and descending stairs.
Semi-structured interview: Participants' lived experiences using the investigational foot in comparison to the participant's usual foot will be collected using qualitative research methods. There will be an exit interview using open-ended questions to obtain qualitative data on foot performance and comparisons of foot prostheses. The interviews will be audio recorded. Interviews may be conducted remotely.
Daily Log Book: During home use of the participant's usual foot and the investigational foot, participants will keep an activity log (completed either electronically or on paper) that encourages descriptions of activities, including strengths and limitations of foot performance.
Functional Tasks Figure-of-8 Walk Test: Subjects will begin the task standing between the 2 cones. The subject will walk a figure-of-8 course 3 times for each condition at their self-selected pace and stop when they return to the start position. Time to complete the test and number of steps will be collected.
Narrowing Beam Walking Test:
The test consists of walking across a beam that has 4, 6-foot long sections, each one narrower than the previous one. The narrowing beam is 2" above the floor. When ready, the subject will begin walking along the beam while keeping their feet pointed in the direction of the beam (no side-stepping allowed). Subjects must keep their arms crossed in front of their body to eliminate the use of their arms to maintain balance. For this test of balance, the distance along the beam will be measured.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Device feasibility
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- The research design is an A-B-A design, where the A condition is the participant's usual prosthetic foot and the B condition is the investigational foot.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Lower extremity amputees | Other | Device: Investigational prosthetic footCommunity walking trial comparing usual prosthetic foot with investigational prosthetic foot. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 16 to 85 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Unilateral below knee amputation, use a prosthetic foot for at least 1 year
- Ability to walk 400 meters on level ground without using a walking aid and without an increase in pain
- Ability to read, write, and comprehend English
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Residual skin breakdown
- Weight over 300 lbs
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Investigational prosthetic footIndividuals will complete 2-4 weeks of community walking with the investigational foot and compare to their regular prosthetic foot. | Device | Lower extremity amputees |
Primary outcome
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ): Ambulation Sub-Scale
Time frame: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Self-report questionnaire. PEQ Subscales: The PEQ is a 9-scale instrument that has good psychometric properties and has been validated. The PEQ subscales have a range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). PEQ subscales of residual limb health, ambulation, utility, and sounds were selected for this study and comprise a total of 24 visual analogue scale questions. ICC estimates for these subscales for the first and second administration ranged from 0.79 to 0.9.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Comprehensive Lower Extremity Amputee Socket Survey (CLASS): Comfort Scale
Time frame: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
The intent of the CLASS is to provide greater insight into the cause of socket dissatisfaction compared to the Socket Comfort Score. To accomplish this, the CLASS includes 4 subcategories; 1) stability, 2) suspension, 3) comfort, and 4) appearance. Each subcategory contains 3-4 items scored using a 5-point scale that relate to common tasks such as standing, sitting, walking, and ascending and descending stairs. Scale range: 0-60 Values: 0 = worst outcome; 60 = best outcome Subscales:0-16
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Figure-of-8 Walking Test: Time
Time frame: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
The F8W was developed to represent walking skills used in everyday life, involving straight and curved paths in both right and left directions. It has been validated in older adult populations with mobility disability. Subjects will begin the task standing between the 2 cones. The subject will walk a figure 8 course 3 times for each condition at their self-selected pace and stop when they return to the start position. The outcomes of the test are the time to complete the course.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Daily Activity Log: Scale Measuring How Prosthesis Helps or Hinders When Walking on a Challenging Surface
Time frame: Daily for 2-4 weeks
Difference between investigational foot and usual foot of the average daily values of the visual analog scale of participant's perception of gait on challenging surface. Scale range: 0-100 Values: 0 = worst outcome; 100 = best outcome
7 secondary outcomes
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ): Residual Limb Health Subscale
Time frame: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Comprehensive Lower Extremity Amputee Socket Survey (CLASS): Stability Subscale
Time frame: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Narrowing Beam Walking Test: Distance Travelled
Time frame: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B). Primary analysis uses B minus A1.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Daily Activity Log: Balance Confidence
Time frame: Average of daily measurements for 2-4 weeks using the investigational foot (B) and 2-4 weeks using the usual foot (A2). Outcome is B- A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ): Utility Subscale
Time frame: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ): Sound Subscale
Time frame: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Comprehensive Lower Extremity Amputee Socket Survey (CLASS): Suspension Subscales
Time frame: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 21 Jun 2024.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 9710165Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, del Aguila M, Larsen J, Boone D. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Aug;79(8):931-8. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(98)90090-9.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Lower Extremity Amputation
Recruiting
Bio Leg: Advancing Mobility (BAM)
Amputation of Lower Limb Above Knee, Amputee
Recruiting
Impact of Footwear on Gait in Unilateral Transtibial Amputees
Transtibial Amputation, Lower Limb Amputation
Recruiting
Prosthetic Socket Fit Testing System
Amputation
Recruiting
TENS for Restoring Somatotopic Sensory Feedback in Lower Limb Amputees and Improving Phantom Limb Perception
Lower Limb Amputation Above Knee, Lower Limb Amputation Below Knee
RecruitingObservational study
Core Muscle Function and Postural Control in Lower Extremity Amputees
Amputation, Ultrasonography
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.
Murray Maitland, PhD principal investigator
University of Washington
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Investigational prosthetic foot in people with Lower Extremity Amputation, run by University of Washington at 1 site 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 3 inclusion and 2 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 21 Jun 2024. 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 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?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 21 Jun 2024). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
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?
Difference Between Investigational Foot and Usual Foot in the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ): Ambulation Sub-Scale (time frame: Baseline (A1), after 2-week trial of investigational foot (B), after return to usual foot for 2 weeks (A2). Primary analysis uses B minus A2.). The study lists 4 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 NCT03703232, 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 21 Jun 2024.