Power Knee
DevicePowered microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee
NCT Number: NCT04787627
Prospective two group cross over investigation, comparing the investigational device (Power Knee, a powered microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee) and subjects prescribed microprocessor prosthetic knee (MPK).
The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of the investigational device in reducing exertion during walking compared to passive MPKs. Additionally to evaluate the efficacy of the investigational device in the short and long term compared to passive MPKs and previous versions of the Power Knee, during daily living activities i.e. walking on level ground, in stairs and inclines, rising from and sitting down to a chair as well as performance of gait functions and ease of set up for average to highly active transfemoral/knee disarticulation amputees and Certified Prosthetists/Orthotists (CPOs).
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Medical Center Orthotics and Prosthetics, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
This is a prospective two group cross-over study, within subject comparison. 3 study visits are planned for amputee subjects, with approximately 2-3 weeks between visits, and an optional fourth visit 8-12 weeks after the third visit. During the first visit subjects will be check for inclusion/exclusion, consented and randomly assigned into two groups and Group 1 (transitioning to the investigational device) will perform functional tests and answer questionnaires on the performance of their current prosthesis to provide baseline information. The Group 1 subjects will be fitted and trained on the investigational device and a recommended prosthetic foot which they will use as their prescribed prosthesis for 2-3 weeks until the second visit, the other half will stay on their prescribed prosthesis until the second visit.
During the second visit the subjects of Group 1 will perform the same functional tests as in the first visit on the investigational device and answer questionnaires on the performance of the investigational device, and then return to their prescribed prosthesis. The Group 2 will perform the same tests/questionnaires on their prescribed prosthesis and then be fitted and trained on the investigational device and use it as their usual prosthesis for 2-3 weeks.
During the third visit all subject will repeat the tests and questionnaires on the prosthesis they are fitted with (Group1 on the prescribed and Group 2 on the investigational device). Subjects will have the option to use the investigational device for an additional 8-12 weeks, those who choose that will be fitted with the investigational device or will stay on it, depending in which they are in at this point. They will be booked for the fourth visit; they will be contacted via telephone 4-5 weeks later and asked to provide feedback on their experience with the device so far. Those that choose not to keep using the investigational device will be returned to their prescribed prosthesis.
During the fourth visit subjects will answer the same questionnaires and perform the same functional tests as the other visits. Data will be collected from the knee on activity. They will then be fitted back to their prescribed prosthesis.
End of study. CPO (Certified Prosthetist Orthotist) subjects will answer a questionnaire on the ease of setup of the investigational device and provide feedback on the ease of setup of gait functions.
Statistical considerations:
Outcomes at each timepoint were visually inspected for normality using histograms and qq-plots, as well as a Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test. If the data were deemed to be normal the hypotheses were tested using a two-tailed, paired, student's t-test. Non-normal data was tested using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Powered microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee
Time frame: At baseline, after 2 weeks of either using the Power knee or their own prescription prosthesis, and at the fourth follow-up (at approximately weeks 22-16)
Mean difference in perceived exertion on the Borg rating scale of perceived exertion before and after 6 minute walk test (6MWT) (see outcome 2) with investigational device (Power Knee) compared to comparator (prescribed device). Subjects are asked how exerted they feel on a scale of 0-10 (0 indicating no exertion and 10 indicating the most exertion) at rest before they carry out the 6MWT, and after carrying out the 6MWT, the difference is recorded.
The Borg Category Rating 10 scale (CR10) is a validated measure of perceived exertion.
Time frame: At baseline, after 2 weeks of either using the Power knee or their own prescription prosthesis, and at the fourth follow-up (at approximately weeks 22-16)
Average distance walked in 6MWT with investigational device (Power Knee) compared to comparator (prescribed device) User walk for 6 minutes in their self selected walking speed on a 30 meter track.
Shorter time indicates better mobility performance.
Time frame: At baseline, after 2 weeks of either using the Power knee or their own prescription prosthesis, and at the fourth follow-up (at approximately weeks 22-16)
Support in sit to stand and stand to sit evaluation:
Total score (minimum score 0 - maximum score 8) of Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire (PMQ) questions 9 and 10 with investigational device (Power Knee) compared to comparator (prescribed knee):
PMQ : Over the past 2 weeks, please rate your ability in the following activities when using your prosthesis (0=no ability, 4=fully able):
The total score is obtained by summing the scores from questions 9 and 10.
Time frame: At baseline, after 2 weeks of either using the Power knee or their own prescription prosthesis, and at the fourth follow-up (at approximately weeks 22-16)
Average score with investigational device (Power Knee) compared to comparator (prescribed device) of modified PEQ Question 14F
Modified PEQ question 14F :
Over the past 2 weeks, please rate your ability in the following activities when using your prosthesis :
Time frame: At baseline, after 2 weeks of either using the Power knee or their own prescription prosthesis, and at the fourth follow-up (at approximately weeks 22-16)
Average score with investigational device (Power Knee) compared to comparator (prescribed device) of modified PEQ Question 13D
Over the past 2 weeks, please rate your ability in the following activities when using your prosthesis :
Time frame: At baseline, after 2 weeks of either using the Power knee or their own prescription prosthesis, and at the fourth follow-up (at approximately weeks 22-16)
Proportion of subjects reporting satisfaction with walking speed on investigational device
Time frame: At baseline, after 2 weeks of either using the Power knee or their own prescription prosthesis, and at the fourth follow-up (at approximately weeks 22-16)
Ability to ambulate over typical environmental obstacles measured by the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), T-score with Power Knee compared to comparator (prescribed device).
The Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility™ is a self-report instrument for measuring mobility of adults with lower limb amputation.
Scoring a PLUS-M short form produces a T-score. To find the T-score, the scores must be summed for all responses on the short form (creating a raw score). Then the raw score needs to be used to determine the T-score in the conversation table provided with the PLUS-M questionnaire.
The T-score is a standardized score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher T-score indicates a higher level of mobility. The highest possible T-score is 71.4 and the lowest one is 21.8.
Time frame: At baseline, after 2 weeks of either using the Power knee or their own prescription prosthesis, and at the fourth follow-up (at approximately weeks 22-16)
Average score with investigational device (Power Knee) compared to comparator (prescribed device) of modified PEQ Question 13A
Over the past 2 weeks, please rate your ability in the following activities when using your prosthesis :
Time frame: At baseline, after 2 weeks of either using the Power knee or their own prescription prosthesis, and at the fourth follow-up (at approximately weeks 22-16)
Average score with investigational device (Power Knee) compared to comparator (prescribed device) of modified PEQ Question 1D
Over the past 2 weeks, please rate your ability in the following activities when using your prosthesis :
Time frame: Immediately after the intervention (fitting of the investigational device)
Self reported ease of setup of investigational device compared to state of the art microprocessor knees (SOTA MPKs) and previous version of the investigational device.
Average score with investigational device (Power Knee) compared to comparator (previous version of Power Knee) and compared to state of the art microprocessor knees (SOTA MPKs) The scale used is a Likert Scale 1-10 (1 indicating low rating and 10 indicating a high rating).
Time frame: After 2 weeks of either using the Power Knee or their own prescribed knee
Proportion of participants with Average score with investigational device of PEQ questions 3K and 3L over 5
PEQ- Questions 3K, 3L:
Support question (yes/no) "Would the noise from the test device prevent you from preferring it as your usual prosthesis?"
Time frame: At baseline, after 2 weeks of either using the Power knee or their own prescription prosthesis, and at the fourth follow-up (at approximately weeks 22-16)
Total score of PMQ questions 1,3-6 (minimum score 0 - maximum score 20):
PMQ (Questions 1 and 3-6):
Over the past 2 weeks, please rate your ability in the following activities when using your prosthesis:
Time frame: At baseline, after 2 weeks of either using the Power knee or their own prescription prosthesis, and at the fourth follow-up (at approximately weeks 22-16)
The L-Test of Functional Mobility consists of a series of movements designed to assess an individual's physical function and dynamic balance. The test involves the participant starting from a seated position, standing up, walking a short distance, turning, walking back, and returning to the seated position. The course typically forms an "L" shape, which includes two turns, and the total distance covered is longer than that of similar tests like the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. The outcome measure is the time taken to complete these movements, providing an objective evaluation of the participant's functional mobility. There is no fixed minimum or maximum; lower times indicate better performance (i.e., faster completion reflects greater mobility).
Time frame: At baseline, after 2 weeks of either using the Power knee or their own prescription prosthesis, and at the fourth follow-up (at approximately weeks 22-16)
Average Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire (PMQ) total score (minimum score 0 - maximum score 48) with investigational device (Power Knee) compared to comparator (prescribed device).
The Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire is a tool for assessing mobility in people with lower-limb amputation, higher score indicates better mobility performance.
Time frame: After 2 weeks of using the Power Knee
Evaluating the occurrence of side effects associated with the Power Knee entails systematically documenting and analyzing any adverse effects experienced by users throughout the 2 weeks of use.
Össur Iceland ehf
Industry
Clinical Investigation (Beta) of Power Knee
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT07519746
Amputation, Behavior
Gaza, Palestinian Territories
View Trial DetailsNCT07159490
Amputation, Prosthesis User
Seattle, Washington, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05523349
Amputation, Prosthesis User
Merrillville, Indiana, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT04799145
Amputation, Prosthesis User
View Trial Details