Prosthesis UserNCT05523349
An Investigation on Function and Performance of a New Microprocessor Controlled Prosthetic Knee
A study testing NAVii in people with Prosthesis User and Amputation, run by Össur Iceland ehf at 4 sites in 2 countries.
Trial summary
This investigation aims to compare the functional performance of a new passive microprocessor-controlled Prosthetic Knee to subjects usual microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee. 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?
- NAVii
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 14 participants
- Where
- 4 sitesin 2 countries
- Study dates
- 15 Aug 2022to 30 Sep 2022
- 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
- 45Kg< body weight < 136Kg
- Cognitive ability to understand all instructions and questionnaires in the study;
- Unilateral TF/KD amputees that are regular prosthesis users for at least 3 months
- Current MPK users (passive MPKs only)
- Age ≥ 18 years
- Willing and able to participate in the study and follow the protocol
- Moderate to high active users (PLUS M T-score>4021)
Who cannot join
- Users with stump pain
- Users with socket problems
- Pregnant Users
- Users using Power Knee, Kenevo or mechanical knees as their prescribed prosthesis
- Alignment that cannot be matched with the Rheo Knee 4 setup, as described in Instructions for use.
- Osseointegration
Trial locations and contacts
4 sites in 2 countries.
4 sites in 2 countries
United States3 sites
Oakland Orthopedic appliances
Bay City, Michigan, 48708
Bionic P & O
Merrillville, Indiana, 46410
Perry Prosthetics
Perrysburg, Ohio, 43551
About this study
Official title: An Investigation on Function and Performance of a New Microprocessor-controlled Prosthetic Knee
This investigation aims to compare the functional performance of a new passive microprocessor-controlled Prosthetic Knee to subjects usual microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee.
Read the detailed description
The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the investigational device compared to other passive MPKs (Rheo Knee 4, C-leg 4, Genium, X3, Plié 3, Orion 3, Quattro, Allux) regarding satisfaction in descending activities for moderate to high active prosthesis users within the intended population for the investigational device.
Additionally, to evaluate the balance confidence, perception of safety and comfort in standing with the investigational device compared to other passive MPKs (Rheo Knee 4, C-leg 4, Genium, X3, Plié 3, Orion 3, Quattro, Allux).
In phase I the performance in descending activities will be compared to any other passive MPK and in phase II there will be a subgroup analysis comparing to hydraulic MPKs and Rheo Knee 3, specifically.
The test will be a non-randomized single group open label prospective repeated measures (ABA) design.
Amputees are a small proportion of the general population. The population group specified in the inclusion/exclusion criteria is a further subsample of amputees. For practical reasons, i.e. to achieve statistical power, it is therefore more feasible to use within-subject comparison rather than creating study arms to compare. Furthermore, as mobile amputees generally have and use a prosthetic device for their daily activities, within-comparison is feasible comparing to the subject's previous device.
All investigational activities will be conducted at prosthetic out-patient clinics.
As stated above the primary endpoint is Satisfaction on descending stairs, and the secondary endpoints are satisfaction on descending ramps, balance confidence and standing comfort in that respective order of significance. In addition, there are two exploratory endpoints on mobility and balance during ambulation.
Procedures:
- Recruitment Potential subjects will be identified from the customer base of the Local Principal Investigator (LPI). LPI evaluates, based on previous experience of interaction with and servicing of patients, if a potential participant is cognitively capable. If a potential participant fits the inclusion and exclusion criteria the LPI will contact them via telephone. During the telephone call the LPI will verify if they are interested in participating in a study. If interest is expressed at this point they will answer some screening questions and if the eligibility criteria are met an appointment will be made for the clinical visit and signing of the ICF. Questions relating to the duration of the study, number of clinical visits required and the investigational device will be answered.
Potential risk of participating in the investigation will be explained to the subject at this point to the candidate for enrolment.
The LPI will communicate to the study monitor and sponsor co-investigator the number of users he has identified that meet the inclusion criteria and are willing to participate.
ii) Test procedure There are three scheduled study events. Three sites will be included in the study, 4-10 users will be recruited at each site. At the initial visit, the first study event, for each subject a researcher qualified to obtain informed consent will seat the subject and proceed as described.
Prior to fitting the subject will be asked to provide feedback on the current prosthesis, by filling in a set of questionnaires (Including background information) and perform functional tests. The users will be fitted within the standard methods of prosthetic fitting, alignment, introduction, training and walking on various terrain.
After initial fitting, subjects will receive standard training on the investigational device by a certified prosthetist (the LPI) with support from sponsor investigators. When training is complete, and subjects feel comfortable and safe they will leave the site on the investigational device to use as their primary prosthesis in their daily life for 3 weeks. During this 3 week period the LPI will be in weekly contact with subjects via telephone to check on any issues that may arise.
The second visit will be at three weeks after visit 1. During this visit subjects will complete the same functional tests and questionnaires as at visit 1 (excluding background information) on the investigational device, with the addition of a usability questionnaire. They will then be fitted back to their prescribed device.
The third visit will be three weeks later. During this visit subjects will complete the same functional tests and questionnaires as at visit 2 (excluding usability questionnaire) on their prescribed device, as well as completing a qualitative interview on their experiences with both microprocessor knee devices.
iii) Measurements and data collection The same questionnaires, consisting of three valid instruments (PEQ questions, PLUS-M and ABC), will be used and filled in at three separate points in time. Background information will be collected at baseline only, usability questionnaire at visit 2 only and qualitative interview at visit 3 only. An activity report will be generated from the investigational device at visit 2 and an activity report from subjects prescribed device at visit 3, if applicable.
- Conditions
- Prosthesis User, Amputation
- Being tested
- NAVii
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
NAViiDevice
Passive Microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| NAVii | Experimental | Users will be fitted with a new microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee for 3 weeks to compare to their usual device. Receives: Device: NAVii |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Satisfaction During Stair Descent
A question from the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) regarding the satisfaction of walking downstairs is answered; scale allows for values from 1 to 10 while 1 represents very low satisfaction and 10 high satisfaction. The analysis was done by using a Bayesian approach which presents the posterior distribution of effects between Visit 2 and visit 3. The parameter for analysis is the difference of the score between Visits 2 and 3. If scores in Visit 2 (subjects using the investigational device) were larger than in visit 3 (subjects using their prescribed device), the difference of Visit3 - Visit2 scores would be negative and would therefore support the corresponding hypotheses. The Median difference and range of the Confidence interval of the difference are reported in the outcome measure data table.
Measured: for analysis data from visit 2 (3 weeks after visit 1) and visit 3 (3 weeks after visit 2) were used
Secondary outcomes (1)
Six Minute Walk Test
The Six Minute Walk test (6MWT) is 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.
Measured: for the final analysis data from visit 2 (3 weeks after visit 1) and visit 3 (3 weeks after visit 2) were used
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted31 Aug 2022
- Study start15 Aug 2022
- Primary completion30 Sep 2022
- Study completion30 Sep 2022
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.
- 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
- Model description
- Considering previous experience with clinical investigations in prosthetics it was concluded to conduct a non-randomized prospective repeated measures (ABA) design, comparing subjects' current MPK at baseline and 3-week follow-up vs. the investigational device at 3-week follow-up.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 14 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Össur Iceland ehf
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Kurt N Gruben, CPO, Principal investigator, Ossur Americas
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05523349
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CIP2022022514
- Status last verified
- Jan 2026
- First submitted
- 29 Aug 2022
- Last updated
- 2 Feb 2026
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Feb 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- An Investigation on Function and Performance of a New Microprocessor-controlled Prosthetic Knee
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05523349
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CIP2022022514
- Conditions
- Prosthesis User, Amputation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 14 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Össur Iceland ehfIndustry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Study start
- 15 Aug 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Sep 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Sep 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 31 Aug 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 2 Feb 2026
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This investigation aims to compare the functional performance of a new passive microprocessor-controlled Prosthetic Knee to subjects usual microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee.
Detailed description
The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the investigational device compared to other passive MPKs (Rheo Knee 4, C-leg 4, Genium, X3, Plié 3, Orion 3, Quattro, Allux) regarding satisfaction in descending activities for moderate to high active prosthesis users within the intended population for the investigational device.
Additionally, to evaluate the balance confidence, perception of safety and comfort in standing with the investigational device compared to other passive MPKs (Rheo Knee 4, C-leg 4, Genium, X3, Plié 3, Orion 3, Quattro, Allux).
In phase I the performance in descending activities will be compared to any other passive MPK and in phase II there will be a subgroup analysis comparing to hydraulic MPKs and Rheo Knee 3, specifically.
The test will be a non-randomized single group open label prospective repeated measures (ABA) design.
Amputees are a small proportion of the general population. The population group specified in the inclusion/exclusion criteria is a further subsample of amputees. For practical reasons, i.e. to achieve statistical power, it is therefore more feasible to use within-subject comparison rather than creating study arms to compare. Furthermore, as mobile amputees generally have and use a prosthetic device for their daily activities, within-comparison is feasible comparing to the subject's previous device.
All investigational activities will be conducted at prosthetic out-patient clinics.
As stated above the primary endpoint is Satisfaction on descending stairs, and the secondary endpoints are satisfaction on descending ramps, balance confidence and standing comfort in that respective order of significance. In addition, there are two exploratory endpoints on mobility and balance during ambulation.
Procedures:
- Recruitment Potential subjects will be identified from the customer base of the Local Principal Investigator (LPI). LPI evaluates, based on previous experience of interaction with and servicing of patients, if a potential participant is cognitively capable. If a potential participant fits the inclusion and exclusion criteria the LPI will contact them via telephone. During the telephone call the LPI will verify if they are interested in participating in a study. If interest is expressed at this point they will answer some screening questions and if the eligibility criteria are met an appointment will be made for the clinical visit and signing of the ICF. Questions relating to the duration of the study, number of clinical visits required and the investigational device will be answered.
Potential risk of participating in the investigation will be explained to the subject at this point to the candidate for enrolment.
The LPI will communicate to the study monitor and sponsor co-investigator the number of users he has identified that meet the inclusion criteria and are willing to participate.
ii) Test procedure There are three scheduled study events. Three sites will be included in the study, 4-10 users will be recruited at each site. At the initial visit, the first study event, for each subject a researcher qualified to obtain informed consent will seat the subject and proceed as described.
Prior to fitting the subject will be asked to provide feedback on the current prosthesis, by filling in a set of questionnaires (Including background information) and perform functional tests. The users will be fitted within the standard methods of prosthetic fitting, alignment, introduction, training and walking on various terrain.
After initial fitting, subjects will receive standard training on the investigational device by a certified prosthetist (the LPI) with support from sponsor investigators. When training is complete, and subjects feel comfortable and safe they will leave the site on the investigational device to use as their primary prosthesis in their daily life for 3 weeks. During this 3 week period the LPI will be in weekly contact with subjects via telephone to check on any issues that may arise.
The second visit will be at three weeks after visit 1. During this visit subjects will complete the same functional tests and questionnaires as at visit 1 (excluding background information) on the investigational device, with the addition of a usability questionnaire. They will then be fitted back to their prescribed device.
The third visit will be three weeks later. During this visit subjects will complete the same functional tests and questionnaires as at visit 2 (excluding usability questionnaire) on their prescribed device, as well as completing a qualitative interview on their experiences with both microprocessor knee devices.
iii) Measurements and data collection The same questionnaires, consisting of three valid instruments (PEQ questions, PLUS-M and ABC), will be used and filled in at three separate points in time. Background information will be collected at baseline only, usability questionnaire at visit 2 only and qualitative interview at visit 3 only. An activity report will be generated from the investigational device at visit 2 and an activity report from subjects prescribed device at visit 3, if applicable.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- Considering previous experience with clinical investigations in prosthetics it was concluded to conduct a non-randomized prospective repeated measures (ABA) design, comparing subjects' current MPK at baseline and 3-week follow-up vs. the investigational device at 3-week follow-up.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| NAVii | Experimental | Device: NAViiUsers will be fitted with a new microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee for 3 weeks to compare to their usual device. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- 45Kg< body weight < 136Kg
- Cognitive ability to understand all instructions and questionnaires in the study;
- Unilateral TF/KD amputees that are regular prosthesis users for at least 3 months
- Current MPK users (passive MPKs only)
- Age ≥ 18 years
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Users with stump pain
- Users with socket problems
- Pregnant Users
- Users using Power Knee, Kenevo or mechanical knees as their prescribed prosthesis
- Alignment that cannot be matched with the Rheo Knee 4 setup, as described in Instructions for use.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| NAViiPassive Microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee | Device | NAVii |
Primary outcome
Satisfaction During Stair Descent
Time frame: for analysis data from visit 2 (3 weeks after visit 1) and visit 3 (3 weeks after visit 2) were used
A question from the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) regarding the satisfaction of walking downstairs is answered; scale allows for values from 1 to 10 while 1 represents very low satisfaction and 10 high satisfaction. The analysis was done by using a Bayesian approach which presents the posterior distribution of effects between Visit 2 and visit 3. The parameter for analysis is the difference of the score between Visits 2 and 3. If scores in Visit 2 (subjects using the investigational device) were larger than in visit 3 (subjects using their prescribed device), the difference of Visit3 - Visit2 scores would be negative and would therefore support the corresponding hypotheses. The Median difference and range of the Confidence interval of the difference are reported in the outcome measure data table.
1 secondary outcome
Six Minute Walk Test
Time frame: for the final analysis data from visit 2 (3 weeks after visit 1) and visit 3 (3 weeks after visit 2) were used
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Feb 2026.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Prosthesis User
Recruiting
Impact of Footwear on Gait in Unilateral Transtibial Amputees
Transtibial Amputation, Lower Limb Amputation
Active, not recruiting
Functional and Neuroprotective Effects of Restoring Lower Limb Sensation After Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Lower Extremity Amputee, Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
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.
Kurt N Gruben, CPO principal investigator
Ossur Americas
4 sites in 2 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing NAVii in people with Prosthesis User and Amputation, run by Össur Iceland ehf at 4 sites in 2 countries.
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 7 inclusion and 6 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 2 Feb 2026. 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, Iceland. 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 2 Feb 2026). 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?
Satisfaction During Stair Descent (time frame: for analysis data from visit 2 (3 weeks after visit 1) and visit 3 (3 weeks after visit 2) were used). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 2 Feb 2026.