AzTrials
AzTrials

Foot DropNCT04594837

Ankle Robotics After Stroke

A study testing PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II), Physical Therapy Only (Phase II) and Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II) in people with Foot Drop and Stroke, run by NextStep Robotics Inc. at 1 site in United States.

Recruiting

Looking for participants now. Contact the study team or a site below to ask about taking part.

Sites and contacts
Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The randomized study (in Phase II of the U44) compares the efficacy and durability of 9 weeks (18 sessions) of robot-assisted physical therapy (PTR) versus physical therapy (PT) alone on foot drop as assessed by gait biomechanics (ankle angle at initial contact, peak swing ankle angle, number of heel-first strikes - %… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Foot Drop, Stroke, Hemiparesis
What is being tested?
PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II), Physical Therapy Only (Phase II) and Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II)
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
140 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
20 Aug 2020to 28 Feb 2025
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Not yet: the study is under way

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

  • Ages 18 and older
  • In the subacute phase of stroke recovery (>6 weeks to <6 months post-stroke) with residual hemiparesis of the lower extremity that includes symptoms of foot-drop. - or - In the chronic phase of stroke recovery (>6 months post-stroke) with residual hemiparesis of the lower extremity that includes symptoms of foot-drop.
  • Clear indications of hemiparetic gait by clinical observation

Who cannot join

  • Cardiac history of (a) unstable angina, (b) recent (less than 3 months) myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure (NYHA category II); (c) hemodynamically significant valvular dysfunction
  • Hypertension that is a contraindication for routine physical therapy (greater than 160/100 on two assessments).
  • Medical History: (a) recent hospitalization (less than 3 months) for severe medical disease, (b) symptomatic peripheral arterial occlusive disease, (c) orthopedic or chronic pain conditions that significantly alter gait function, (d) pulmonary or renal failure (e) active cancer
  • History of non-stroke neuromuscular disorder restricting gait.
  • Aphasia or cognitive functioning that confounds participation, defined as unable to follow 2 step commands or judgment of the medical officer or therapist.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.

Richard Macko, MD contact

United States1 site, 1 recruiting
  • University of Maryland Rehabilitation & Orthopaedic Institute

    Baltimore, Maryland, 21207

    Josh Rudnicki, 443-869-3518, JRudnicki@som.umaryland.edu

    Recruiting

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: Portable Ankle Robotics to Reverse Foot Drop After Stroke

The randomized study (in Phase II of the U44) compares the efficacy and durability of 9 weeks (18 sessions) of robot-assisted physical therapy (PTR) versus physical therapy (PT) alone on foot drop as assessed by gait biomechanics (ankle angle at initial contact, peak swing ankle angle, number of heel-first strikes - % total steps, gait velocity) and blinded clinician assessment (dorsiflexion active range of motion, ankle muscle strength, assistive device needs).

Read the detailed description

This proposal investigates a portable ankle robot (AMBLE) to be used during over-ground mobility training to reduce foot drop and improve walking function in hemiparetic (half-body, partially paralyzed stroke patients with foot drop (inability to properly lift and clear the foot during walking. About 30% of stroke survivors are left with permanent ankle weakness that impairs their mobility and increases fall-risk. Currently, stroke survivors with foot drop live with a cane or other assistive device, and often ankle-foot braces (AFOs) for safety. These assistive devices do not reverse or reduce the underlying neurological foot drop problem. Recognizing the crucial role of ankle function in walking and balance, and recognizing that the distal part of the lower extremity often suffers the greatest damage after a human stroke, the investigators have come up with a portable ankle robot as a tool for therapists to help shape recovery of walking.

The AMBLE, and its underlying control system, uses information about how patients are walking from one step to another to assist and shape foot lifting so as to help re- train walking recovery by a process that neuroscientists call motor learning. It is the combination of the partially paralyzed stroke survivor's movement efforts with timely assistance "only as needed" by the robot that investigators and others show is the key to movement recovery after stroke. Thus, the ankle robot is not a crutch, but a learning and measuring device that incrementally "gets out of the way" of the learner to facilitate human robot learning such that the human takes over more of the volitional learning.

The research team at University of Maryland has demonstrated in 4 prior studies using seated and treadmill based robot assisted training using a bulky laboratory robot programmed with a motor learning formula that can improve ankle motor control in both the early and chronic phases of stroke, and this can improve over-ground unassisted walking. A significant proportion of stroke survivors showed session by session recovery of volitional (not assisted by the robot) ankle lifting during walking across 6 weeks of three 30- 45 minute sessions of robot training while walking on a treadmill, even years after their stroke. In fact, it has been found that two weeks of 3 sessions per week ankle robotics training was the time profile for most motor learning recovery to reduce foot drop. This information has informed the design of the study described below.

Previous research was done using a bulky, heavy (~8 lbs), and expensive laboratory robot that only allowed seated or treadmill based training because it was tethered by wires. This greatly limits how it can be used by physical therapists, and is not appropriately configured for ease of use by physical therapists in practice. NextStep Robotics invented and built the ankle robots motor learning programs with a lot of input from physical therapists and other rehabilitation clinicians into a portable lightweight robot that can be used over-ground anywhere with blue tooth controls that also tell the therapist precisely how well the stroke survivors is learning, step by step. It is this new portable ankle robot that is configured for use in practice that investigators seek to test in studies with physical therapists using it fully integrated into their usual outpatient stroke mobility recovery training at University of Maryland Orthopedics and Rehabilitation Institute.

This U44 Award from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) is not a typical single phase randomized clinical study, but consists of Phase I that completes commercial design of the robot the first year, followed by Phase II randomized clinical trial across years 2-4 of a finalized commercial version of the ankle robot.

Phase II (following completion of commercial design in Phase I) is a randomized (group assignment by chance), blinded (outcome testing done by technicians unaware of patient group assignment), two arm (2 groups) study that investigates the hypothesis that in subacute (6 weeks to 6 months) stroke subjects with foot drop, AMBLE integrated physical therapy (PTR) consisting of 18 training sessions over nine weeks is more effective than usual physical therapy (PT) to improve foot drop outcomes measured by movement analyses of walking, and by standardized clinical assessments of walking including specific foot drop outcomes as assessed by a certified PT clinician (blinded to treatment assignment), cross checked by blinded review of 2 other clinicians of films of the standardized mobility assessments to provide a consensus impartial judgement. Notably, this Phase II study focuses on sub-acute stroke recovery (6 weeks to 6 months) because it represents a therapeutic window into which conventional outpatient physical therapy is typically front-loaded to optimize outcomes. This phase of stroke rehabilitation is selected to test the AMBLE in real world settings when outpatient physical therapy typically occurs, using a treatment frequency and duration (18 physical therapy sessions across 9 weeks) that is representative of practice in Maryland and most of the United States. If wearing the AMBLE robot during physical therapy in this time-frame reduces foot drop and improves longer term outcomes measured 3 months after all robotics therapy has ended, then the investigators will apply for FDA approval for the first robotics device to actively treat foot drop after stroke.

Being tested
PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II), Physical Therapy Only (Phase II), Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II), Chronic Stroke Subjects to receive robotic gait training therapy.
Medical subject headings
Peroneal Neuropathies, Stroke, Paresis

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II)Device

    Also called PTR

    Subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain.

  • Physical Therapy Only (Phase II)Other

    Also called PT

    Subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with therapist assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain.

  • Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II)Device

    Also called X-PTR

    Participants enrolled in the physical therapy only group will be given the option to re-enroll as a cross over participant to receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain.

  • Chronic Stroke Subjects to receive robotic gait training therapy.Device

    Also called C-PTR

    Chronic stroke subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain.

Study groups in NCT04594837
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
PTR (Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group) (Phase II)ExperimentalSubjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain.
Receives: Device: PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II)
PT (Physical Therapy Only) (Phase II)Active comparatorSubjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with therapist assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain.
Receives: Other: Physical Therapy Only (Phase II)
X-PTR, Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group.ExperimentalParticipants enrolled in the physical therapy only group will be given the option to re-enroll as a cross over participant to receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain.
Receives: Device: Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II)
C-PTR, Chronic Stroke Subjects to receive robotic gait training therapy.ExperimentalChronic stroke subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain.
Receives: Device: Chronic Stroke Subjects to receive robotic gait training therapy.

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Angle at Initial Contact

    Angle at initial contact averaged across each gait cycle for each subject at a given testing time point.

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  2. Swing Dorsiflexion

    Peak swing dorsiflexion averaged across each gait cycle for each subject at a given testing time point.

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  3. Number of Heel-First Foot Strikes

    Number of heel-first foot strikes for each subject at a given testing time point.

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  4. Gait Velocity

    Average gait velocity (meters/second) for each subject at a given testing time point.

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

Secondary outcomes (12)
  1. Active range of motion for Dorsiflexion

    Active range of motion measured for dorsiflexion by blinded clinician.

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  2. Ankle Muscle Strength

    Measurement of ankle strength by blinded clinician using the MMT (manual muscle testing)

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  3. Number of Participants Using Assistive Devices and Ankle Foot Orthoses

    Number of Participants Using Assistive Devices and Ankle Foot Orthoses

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  4. Dynamic Gait Index

    Assesses gait, balance, and fall risk; ranges from 0-24; higher score is better

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  5. Berg Balance Scale

    A 14-item objective measure designed to assess static balance and fall risk; ranges from 0-56; higher score is better

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  6. Stroke Impact Scale

    A self-report questionnaire that evaluates disability and health-related quality of life after stroke.

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  7. Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale

    A self-report measure of balance confidence in performing various activities without losing balance; ranges from 0-1600; higher score is better

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  8. CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression)

    The Center of Epidemiological Studies-Depression, a 20-item measure that asks to rate how often over the past week the patient experienced symptoms associated with depression; ranges from 0-60; high scores indicating greater depressive symptoms.

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  9. NIH Stroke Scale

    Tool used to quantify the impairment caused by a stroke, composed of 11 items; ranges from 0-42; higher score indicates greater impairment.

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  10. Falls Efficacy Scale

    A 16-item self-administered questionnaire designed to assess fear of falling; ranges 16-64; higher score indicates greater fear of falling.

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  11. Fatigue Assessment Scale

    10-item scale evaluating symptoms of fatigue; ranges from 10-50; higher score indicates greater levels of fatigue.

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

  12. Modified Ashworth Scale

    Measures spasticity in patients; ranges from 0-4; higher score indicates more spasticity/rigidity.

    Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted20 Oct 2020
  2. Study start20 Aug 2020
  3. Primary completion28 Feb 2025 (estimated)
  4. Study completion28 Feb 2025 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
140 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04594837
Sponsor's protocol ID
1 U44 111076-01
Status last verified
Jan 2023
First submitted
14 Oct 2020
Last updated
26 Jan 2023
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No

Publications

  • Roy A, Hennessie B, Hafer-Macko C, Forrester LW, Westlake K, Macko RF. Adaptive control ankle robotics training durably improves gait biomechanics in chronic hemiparetic stroke and footdrop. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2025 Dec 29;23(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12984-025-01834-2.

    PubMed 41462280
  • Roy A, Hennessie B, Hafer-Macko C, Westlake K, Macko R. Dorsiflexion Specific Ankle Robotics to Enhance Motor Learning After Stroke: A Preliminary Report. Res Sq [Preprint]. 2024 Jun 25:rs.3.rs-4390770. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4390770/v1.

    PubMed 38978605

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II), Physical Therapy Only (Phase II) and Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II) in people with Foot Drop and Stroke, run by NextStep Robotics Inc. 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 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Jan 2023. 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?

This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Josh Rudnicki (443-869-3518, JRudnicki@som.umaryland.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Angle at Initial Contact (time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks). 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 NCT04594837, which also lists 2 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 26 Jan 2023.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in