Prosthesis UserNCT04023578
An Investigation of Functional Improvements in the RHEO KNEE Compared to Hydraulic Microprocessor Controlled Knees (MPKs)
A study testing RHEO KNEE XC in people with Prosthesis User and Amputation, run by Össur Iceland ehf at 4 sites in United States.
Trial summary
The aim of this study was to evaluate the mobility, perceived safety and functioning of unilateral transfemoral (TF) amputees using the Rheo Knee XC compared to their existing prosthetic knee (RHEO KNEE II, III or Genium, X2 or X3) after 3 weeks of use. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Prosthesis User, Amputation
- What is being tested?
- RHEO KNEE XC
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 15 participants
- Where
- 4 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 30 Jun 2015to 4 Aug 2015
- 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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Cognitive ability to understand all instructions and questionnaires in the study;
- Unilateral kneedisartic or transfemoral users fitted to Rheo Knee II,III Genium or X2 or X3
- Willing and able to participate in the study and follow the protocol
- Confident prosthetic users for more than 3 months
- Older than 18 years
Who cannot join
- 50Kg> body weight > 136Kg
- Users with cognitive impairment
- Users not understanding the function of the knee
- Users not able to charge the battery
Trial locations and contacts
4 sites in 1 country.
United States4 sites
Methodist Rehabilitation Center
Flowood, Mississippi, 39232
Baker Orthotics & Prosthetics
Fort Worth, Texas, 76104
Ossur Americas, Florida Gait lab
Orlando, Florida, 32812
Virginia Prosthetics & Orthotics
Roanoke, Virginia, 24012
About this study
Official title: Mobility and Perceived Functioning of Unilateral Transfemoral Amputees, Comparison of Hydraulic and Magneto-rheologic Microprocessor Controlled Knees.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the mobility, perceived safety and functioning of unilateral transfemoral (TF) amputees using the Rheo Knee XC compared to their existing prosthetic knee (RHEO KNEE II, III or Genium, X2 or X3) after 3 weeks of use.
The primary objective of the study was to determine/investigate whether unilateral (TF) amputees can apply and benefit from the stair ascent function of the Rheo Knee XC and compare the stair ascent function and automatic cycling detection of the Rheo Knee XC to hydraulic microprocessor controlled knees (MPK-HY).
Read more
The testing was conducted in a non-blinded, multicenter, prospective within subject comparison, with a subgroup analysis with Magneto-rheologic microprocessor controlled knees (MPK-MR) subgroup and MPK-HY subgroup comparing to the Rheo knee XC.
A convenience sample of 15 transfemoral amputee users was recruited at 4 study sites.
Inclusion criteria:
- Cognitive ability to understand all instructions and questionnaires in the study;
- Unilateral knee-disarticulated or transfemoral users fitted to Rheo Knee II,III or Genium
- Willing and able to participate in the study and follow the protocol
- Confident prosthetic users for more than 3 months
- Older than 18 years Exclusion Criteria
- Patients with the following characteristics are not eligible for study entry:
- 50Kg> body weight > 136Kg
- Users with cognitive impairment
- Users not understanding the function of the knee
- Users not able to charge the battery Testing was conducted between June and August 2015 in four US locations. Participants visited the study location twice, for approximately 3 hours per visit. First time for the baseline measure and initial fitting and secondly after 3 weeks of accommodation on the Rheo knee XC, performing the same measures as for the baseline. Measures included 6 minute walk test with Borg scale CR pre and post, L-test, stair assessment index, stair and bicycle evaluation and Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire mobility section (PEQ MS12/5)
For statistics repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing baseline to 3 week follow up were performed.
Read the detailed description
Recruiting and participants:
A convenience sample of 15 transfemoral amputee users was recruited at 4 study sites. Potential subjects were identified from the customer base of study sites, local investigators evaluated , based on previous experience of interaction with and servicing of patients, if a potential participant is cognitively capable. If a potential participant fitted the inclusion and exclusion criteria the local investigator (CPO-Certified prosthetist/orthotist) contacted them via telephone. During the telephone call the investigator verified if they were interested in participating in the study. If interest was expressed and eligibility criteria was met an appointment was made for enrollment in the study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants at the beginning of the first visit, prior to clinical testing and prosthetic fitting.
Setting:
Testing was conducted in four US locations with daily mean temperature during the testing period between 79.3 to 85.3 degrees Fahrenheit, Fort Worth (Baker orthotics \& prosthetics), Jackson (Methodist Rehabilitation Center), Roanoke (Virginia Prosthetics \& orthotics) and Orlando (Ossur facility, Florida gait lab) . Participants had to visit the study location twice, for approximately 3 hours per visit. First time for the baseline measure and initial fitting and secondly after 3 weeks of accommodation on the Rheo knee XC, performing the same measures as for the baseline. No standard exists for follow up time needed for amputees to adapt to a new prosthesis however, a follow up time of at least 3 weeks is widely used and considered sufficient for functional comparison.
All users used their existing sockets throughout the testing without modifications. One group consisted of 9 previous MPK-magnetorheologic (MPK-MR), Rheo knee II and III, users and the second group of 4 previous MPK-hydraulic knee (MPK-HY), Genium, users. By maintaining alignment and foot choice in the previous Rheo knee group confounding factors could be minimized. The previous MPK-HY was provided with an alignment offset adapter and a consistent foot choice, XC Vari-Flex, at initial fitting. The load line was controlled to be equal prior and post initial fitting. During the initial fitting the MPK-HY users which were new to the XC Vari-Flex had to undergo an evaluation for the foot stiffness as defined by the manufacturer (Ossur ehf). Foot configuration had to be rated acceptable or better with all users that were provided with a XC Vari-Flex.
13 users completed a 3 week evaluation in a multi-center trial with the RHEO KNEE XC at which point they performed Borg Scale CR 10 pre, 6MWT, Borg Scale CR 10 post, L-Test, stair and bicycle evaluation and prosthesis evaluation quesionnaire mobility section) PEQ MS 12/5) on functional ability and prosthesis satisfaction in this order.
The Borg Scale CR 10 is an accepted and reliable psychophysical score which has been used to report on the perceived level of exertion in lower limb amputees. The 6MWT has shown to be a reliable measure in amputees and differentiate among functional levels with a minimum detectable change for unilateral trans-tibial and transfemoral found at 45m. The L-Test is a valid indicator for functional mobility and showed high intraclass correlation, interrater reliability, and minimal bias upon retesting with a moderate correlation to self-reports like the PEQ MS 12/522 which itself is a reliable and valid measure for lower limb amputee assessing psychometric properties.
Ambulating stairs was evaluated as a timed parameter split up in ascending and descending. An observer score/SAI for the gait quality, and a user score/self-report with a 5 point scale (Please rate your ability when using the prosthesis: unable=0, highly difficult=1, moderate difficulty=2, little difficulty=3, no problems=4) similar to the PEQ MS 12/5 scores described by Franchignoni et. al.22 was used. The Rheo Knee XC stair mode can be entered by flexing the hip of the amputated side faster and to a higher degree than in typical walking. The Rheo knee XC will then maintain a flexed position to allow the user to position the foot onto the next stair case. The Genium requires the amputee to stop in front of the stairs and initiate a fast movement into hip-hyperextension to allow the knee to maintain a flexed position. For adapting these two different techniques each user was given 30min training time with instructions to get familiar with the stairs and the operation of the knee in specific location. Equal time was given after initial fitting which was important to the previous MPK-MR knee users who have not used the stair mode before. For the bicycle evaluation the same 5 point scale for the self-report assessment was applied to report on 2 questions: Rate your ability to ride the bicycle and rate your ability to stop the bike with the prosthetic side down.
- Conditions
- Prosthesis User, Amputation
- Being tested
- RHEO KNEE XC
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
RHEO KNEE XCDevice
Microprocessor controlled knee using Magneto-Rheologic techonology.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Rheo Knee XC | Experimental | Amputee subjects currently using either magneto-rehologic or hydraulic MPKs are fitted with the Rheo Knee XC, a magneto-rheologic MPK. Receives: Device: RHEO KNEE XC |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
6 Minute Walk Test (6MWT)
The 6MWT is simply a record of the distance traveled by a given patient at his or her self-selected walking speed over a period of six minutes. All that is required is a stopwatch and a walking corridor or track of known distance. Those administering the test should avoid walking with or in front of test subjects to avoid pacing individuals outside of their self-selected walking speed.
The outcome of the test is the distance walked in 6 minutes, in meters.
Measured: Measured at baseline and after 3 weeks follow up.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Jul 2019
- Study start30 Jun 2015
- Primary completion4 Aug 2015
- Study completion4 Aug 2015
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 (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Prosthesis UserStudies 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
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 15 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Össur Iceland ehf
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Collaborators
- Baker Orthotics & Prosthetics, Virginia Prosthetics & Orthotics, Methodist Rehabilitation Center
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Justin Pratt, M.Sc., Principal investigator, Ossur Iceland ehf
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04023578
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CIP-P197
- Status last verified
- Mar 2020
- First submitted
- 16 Jul 2019
- Last updated
- 6 Apr 2020
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Feb;88(2):207-17. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030.
PubMed 17270519Starholm IM, Gjovaag T, Mengshoel AM. Energy expenditure of transfemoral amputees walking on a horizontal and tilted treadmill simulating different outdoor walking conditions. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010 Jun;34(2):184-94. doi: 10.3109/03093640903585016.
PubMed 20141493Borg G. Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1990;16 Suppl 1:55-8. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1815.
PubMed 2345867Gailey RS, Roach KE, Applegate EB, Cho B, Cunniffe B, Licht S, Maguire M, Nash MS. The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 May;83(5):613-27. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.32309.
PubMed 11994800Deathe AB, Miller WC. The L test of functional mobility: measurement properties of a modified version of the timed "up & go" test designed for people with lower-limb amputations. Phys Ther. 2005 Jul;85(7):626-35.
PubMed 15982169Franchignoni F, Monticone M, Giordano A, Rocca B. Rasch validation of the Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire: A new outcome measure for assessing mobility in people with lower limb amputation. J Rehabil Med. 2015 May;47(5):460-5. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1954.
PubMed 25783231Resnik L, Borgia M. Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error. Phys Ther. 2011 Apr;91(4):555-65. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100287. Epub 2011 Feb 10.
PubMed 21310896Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Ferriero G, Orlandini D, Amoresano A, Perucca L. Measuring mobility in people with lower limb amputation: Rasch analysis of the mobility section of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire. J Rehabil Med. 2007 Mar;39(2):138-44. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0033.
PubMed 17351696
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 Apr 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Mobility and Perceived Functioning of Unilateral Transfemoral Amputees, Comparison of Hydraulic and Magneto-rheologic Microprocessor Controlled Knees.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04023578
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CIP-P197
- Conditions
- Prosthesis User, Amputation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 15 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Össur Iceland ehfIndustry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Collaborators
- Baker Orthotics & Prosthetics, Virginia Prosthetics & Orthotics, Methodist Rehabilitation Center
- Study start
- 30 Jun 2015 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 4 Aug 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- 4 Aug 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Jul 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 17 Mar 2020
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the mobility, perceived safety and functioning of unilateral transfemoral (TF) amputees using the Rheo Knee XC compared to their existing prosthetic knee (RHEO KNEE II, III or Genium, X2 or X3) after 3 weeks of use.
The primary objective of the study was to determine/investigate whether unilateral (TF) amputees can apply and benefit from the stair ascent function of the Rheo Knee XC and compare the stair ascent function and automatic cycling detection of the Rheo Knee XC to hydraulic microprocessor controlled knees (MPK-HY).
The testing was conducted in a non-blinded, multicenter, prospective within subject comparison, with a subgroup analysis with Magneto-rheologic microprocessor controlled knees (MPK-MR) subgroup and MPK-HY subgroup comparing to the Rheo knee XC.
A convenience sample of 15 transfemoral amputee users was recruited at 4 study sites.
Inclusion criteria:
- Cognitive ability to understand all instructions and questionnaires in the study;
- Unilateral knee-disarticulated or transfemoral users fitted to Rheo Knee II,III or Genium
- Willing and able to participate in the study and follow the protocol
- Confident prosthetic users for more than 3 months
- Older than 18 years Exclusion Criteria
- Patients with the following characteristics are not eligible for study entry:
- 50Kg> body weight > 136Kg
- Users with cognitive impairment
- Users not understanding the function of the knee
- Users not able to charge the battery Testing was conducted between June and August 2015 in four US locations. Participants visited the study location twice, for approximately 3 hours per visit. First time for the baseline measure and initial fitting and secondly after 3 weeks of accommodation on the Rheo knee XC, performing the same measures as for the baseline. Measures included 6 minute walk test with Borg scale CR pre and post, L-test, stair assessment index, stair and bicycle evaluation and Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire mobility section (PEQ MS12/5)
For statistics repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing baseline to 3 week follow up were performed.
Detailed description
Recruiting and participants:
A convenience sample of 15 transfemoral amputee users was recruited at 4 study sites. Potential subjects were identified from the customer base of study sites, local investigators evaluated , based on previous experience of interaction with and servicing of patients, if a potential participant is cognitively capable. If a potential participant fitted the inclusion and exclusion criteria the local investigator (CPO-Certified prosthetist/orthotist) contacted them via telephone. During the telephone call the investigator verified if they were interested in participating in the study. If interest was expressed and eligibility criteria was met an appointment was made for enrollment in the study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants at the beginning of the first visit, prior to clinical testing and prosthetic fitting.
Setting:
Testing was conducted in four US locations with daily mean temperature during the testing period between 79.3 to 85.3 degrees Fahrenheit, Fort Worth (Baker orthotics \& prosthetics), Jackson (Methodist Rehabilitation Center), Roanoke (Virginia Prosthetics \& orthotics) and Orlando (Ossur facility, Florida gait lab) . Participants had to visit the study location twice, for approximately 3 hours per visit. First time for the baseline measure and initial fitting and secondly after 3 weeks of accommodation on the Rheo knee XC, performing the same measures as for the baseline. No standard exists for follow up time needed for amputees to adapt to a new prosthesis however, a follow up time of at least 3 weeks is widely used and considered sufficient for functional comparison.
All users used their existing sockets throughout the testing without modifications. One group consisted of 9 previous MPK-magnetorheologic (MPK-MR), Rheo knee II and III, users and the second group of 4 previous MPK-hydraulic knee (MPK-HY), Genium, users. By maintaining alignment and foot choice in the previous Rheo knee group confounding factors could be minimized. The previous MPK-HY was provided with an alignment offset adapter and a consistent foot choice, XC Vari-Flex, at initial fitting. The load line was controlled to be equal prior and post initial fitting. During the initial fitting the MPK-HY users which were new to the XC Vari-Flex had to undergo an evaluation for the foot stiffness as defined by the manufacturer (Ossur ehf). Foot configuration had to be rated acceptable or better with all users that were provided with a XC Vari-Flex.
13 users completed a 3 week evaluation in a multi-center trial with the RHEO KNEE XC at which point they performed Borg Scale CR 10 pre, 6MWT, Borg Scale CR 10 post, L-Test, stair and bicycle evaluation and prosthesis evaluation quesionnaire mobility section) PEQ MS 12/5) on functional ability and prosthesis satisfaction in this order.
The Borg Scale CR 10 is an accepted and reliable psychophysical score which has been used to report on the perceived level of exertion in lower limb amputees. The 6MWT has shown to be a reliable measure in amputees and differentiate among functional levels with a minimum detectable change for unilateral trans-tibial and transfemoral found at 45m. The L-Test is a valid indicator for functional mobility and showed high intraclass correlation, interrater reliability, and minimal bias upon retesting with a moderate correlation to self-reports like the PEQ MS 12/522 which itself is a reliable and valid measure for lower limb amputee assessing psychometric properties.
Ambulating stairs was evaluated as a timed parameter split up in ascending and descending. An observer score/SAI for the gait quality, and a user score/self-report with a 5 point scale (Please rate your ability when using the prosthesis: unable=0, highly difficult=1, moderate difficulty=2, little difficulty=3, no problems=4) similar to the PEQ MS 12/5 scores described by Franchignoni et. al.22 was used. The Rheo Knee XC stair mode can be entered by flexing the hip of the amputated side faster and to a higher degree than in typical walking. The Rheo knee XC will then maintain a flexed position to allow the user to position the foot onto the next stair case. The Genium requires the amputee to stop in front of the stairs and initiate a fast movement into hip-hyperextension to allow the knee to maintain a flexed position. For adapting these two different techniques each user was given 30min training time with instructions to get familiar with the stairs and the operation of the knee in specific location. Equal time was given after initial fitting which was important to the previous MPK-MR knee users who have not used the stair mode before. For the bicycle evaluation the same 5 point scale for the self-report assessment was applied to report on 2 questions: Rate your ability to ride the bicycle and rate your ability to stop the bike with the prosthetic side down.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Rheo Knee XC | Experimental | Device: RHEO KNEE XCAmputee subjects currently using either magneto-rehologic or hydraulic MPKs are fitted with the Rheo Knee XC, a magneto-rheologic MPK. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Cognitive ability to understand all instructions and questionnaires in the study;
- Unilateral kneedisartic or transfemoral users fitted to Rheo Knee II,III Genium or X2 or X3
- Willing and able to participate in the study and follow the protocol
- Confident prosthetic users for more than 3 months
- Older than 18 years
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 50Kg> body weight > 136Kg
- Users with cognitive impairment
- Users not understanding the function of the knee
- Users not able to charge the battery
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 |
|---|---|---|
| RHEO KNEE XCMicroprocessor controlled knee using Magneto-Rheologic techonology. | Device | Rheo Knee XC |
Primary outcome
6 Minute Walk Test (6MWT)
Time frame: Measured at baseline and after 3 weeks follow up.
The 6MWT is simply a record of the distance traveled by a given patient at his or her self-selected walking speed over a period of six minutes. All that is required is a stopwatch and a walking corridor or track of known distance. Those administering the test should avoid walking with or in front of test subjects to avoid pacing individuals outside of their self-selected walking speed. The outcome of the test is the distance walked in 6 minutes, in meters.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 Apr 2020.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 17270519Hafner BJ, Willingham LL, Buell NC, Allyn KJ, Smith DG. Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Feb;88(2):207-17. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.030.
- Background: PubMed 20141493Starholm IM, Gjovaag T, Mengshoel AM. Energy expenditure of transfemoral amputees walking on a horizontal and tilted treadmill simulating different outdoor walking conditions. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010 Jun;34(2):184-94. doi: 10.3109/03093640903585016.
- Background: PubMed 2345867Borg G. Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1990;16 Suppl 1:55-8. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1815.
- Background: PubMed 11994800Gailey RS, Roach KE, Applegate EB, Cho B, Cunniffe B, Licht S, Maguire M, Nash MS. The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee's ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 May;83(5):613-27. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.32309.
- Background: PubMed 15982169Deathe AB, Miller WC. The L test of functional mobility: measurement properties of a modified version of the timed "up & go" test designed for people with lower-limb amputations. Phys Ther. 2005 Jul;85(7):626-35.
- Background: PubMed 25783231Franchignoni F, Monticone M, Giordano A, Rocca B. Rasch validation of the Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire: A new outcome measure for assessing mobility in people with lower limb amputation. J Rehabil Med. 2015 May;47(5):460-5. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1954.
- Background: PubMed 21310896Resnik L, Borgia M. Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error. Phys Ther. 2011 Apr;91(4):555-65. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100287. Epub 2011 Feb 10.
- Background: PubMed 17351696Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Ferriero G, Orlandini D, Amoresano A, Perucca L. Measuring mobility in people with lower limb amputation: Rasch analysis of the mobility section of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire. J Rehabil Med. 2007 Mar;39(2):138-44. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0033.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Prosthesis User
Active, not recruiting
Functional and Neuroprotective Effects of Restoring Lower Limb Sensation After Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Lower Extremity Amputee, Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Recruiting
Impact of Footwear on Gait in Unilateral Transtibial Amputees
Transtibial Amputation, Lower Limb Amputation
Not yet recruiting
Impact of Anterior Load Carriage on Gait in Individuals With Transfemoral Amputation
Unilateral Transfemoral Amputation in Prosthetic Users
Recruiting
Optimize Pattern Recognition Control of Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis
Prosthesis User, Prosthesis
Active, not recruiting
Optimizing Prosthetic Prescription to Mitigate the Effects of Perspiration
Amputation, Prosthesis User
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.
Justin Pratt, M.Sc. principal investigator
Ossur Iceland ehf
4 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing RHEO KNEE XC in people with Prosthesis User and Amputation, run by Össur Iceland ehf at 4 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 5 inclusion and 4 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 6 Apr 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 4 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?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 17 Mar 2020). 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?
6 Minute Walk Test (6MWT) (time frame: Measured at baseline and after 3 weeks follow up.). 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 NCT04023578, which also lists 8 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 6 Apr 2020.