Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT02440711

Evaluation of a Modified Running-specific Prosthetic Foot

The goal of this study is to evaluate endurance, walking performance, mobility, and perceived exertion of transtibial prosthesis users (i.e., study participants) walking with a conventional energy storing prosthetic foot (ESF) and a novel modified running-specific prosthesis (mRSF). A randomized cross-over study will be conducted to determine if the mRSF provides superior performance to the ESF, which is commonly prescribed to most active individuals with lower limb amputation.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Transtibial Amputation

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

University of Washington

Seattle, Washington, 98195, United States

About this study

Amputation of a limb is a life-altering event with profound physical, psychological, and social implications. To address their functional, vocational, and recreational needs, people with lower limb amputation (LLA) are often provided with a prosthesis or artificial leg. While use of a prosthesis can allow an individual to achieve a basic level of functional mobility, absence of an anatomical foot and ankle still impairs their physical performance. As a result, people with LLA regularly exhibit decreased walking speeds, diminished endurance, and restricted ability to participate in desired life situations.

Over the past three decades, increasingly sophisticated prosthetic foot designs have been developed by the prosthetics industry to replace amputated structures in the leg. Contemporary, energy storing feet (ESF) employ advanced materials and unique geometric designs to improve walking performance and endurance of their users. Although prosthetic limbs with ESF allow people with LLA the potential to return to an active lifestyle, even the most advanced ESF do not significantly reduce the increased energy demands required for walking when compared to conventional prosthetic feet.

Commercially-available running-specific feet (RSF) like the Össur Cheetah (Össur, Reykjavik, Iceland) allow people with LLA to participate in athletic activities and sporting events. RSF provide significantly enhanced performance, compared to traditional ESF, by extending the length and increasing the stiffness of the prosthetic keel (forefoot). RSF also do not include a heel, as they are used only for running activities. Although transtibial runners with RSF exhibit endurance levels similar to non-amputees, the RSF design does not allow the biomechanical movements or provide the stability needed to use the foot for walking (over level or uneven terrain).

A novel modified running-specific foot (mRSF) has been developed to integrate the performance of a RSF with the utility of an ESF. The mRSF combines the running keel (forefoot) of a RSF with the walking heel of a ESF. The mRSF can then be used for walking, running, and other routine daily activities. Preliminary feedback on the mRSF suggests that users experience improved overall function and high satisfaction with the device. However, empirical evidence is needed to support prescription of this prosthetic foot at other clinical facilities.

The goal of this study is therefore to evaluate endurance, walking performance, mobility, and perceived exertion of transtibial prosthesis users (i.e., study participants) walking with a conventional ESF and the mRSF. Results will be compared to determine if the mRSF provides superior performance to the ESF, which is commonly prescribed to most active individuals with LLA.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • unilateral or bilateral, transtibial (below-knee) amputation from non-dysvascular causes
  • Medicare functional classification level (K-level) 3 or higher (unlimited community ambulatory)
  • prosthetic user for > 1 year
  • scheduled to receive a mRSF prosthesis
  • able and willing to participate in the study protocol (e.g., treadmill walking, overground walking, respond to survey questions, able to read and write English)

Exclusion criteria

  • contralateral lower or upper limb involvement
  • any health condition that would limit participation in the study procedures (e.g., skin breakdown, heart disease)

Treatment and study plan

Energy storing foot (ESF)

Device

A commercially-available energy storing prosthetic foot

Other names: Ossur Vari-flex

Modified running specific foot (mRSF)

Device

A running specific prosthetic foot customized for both running and walking activities

Other names: Ossur Cheetah (modified); Ossur Xplore

Primary outcomes

  1. Metabolic Oxygen Consumption (VO2), Participants With Unilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Breath-by-Breath VO2 was collected as participants walked on a treadmill at self selected fast, normal, and slow speeds. Participants walked for 6 minutes at each speed (and in each experimental condition). VO2 was normalized energy expenditure to each participant's biological mass (i.e., body mass without prosthesis) Normalized VO2 data were averaged to produce 30-s values for minutes 3-6 of each trial. These 30-s values were used in for the described analyses. Both gross and net VO2 were examined, but produced similar results, so only gross VO2 results are reported.

  2. Metabolic Oxygen Consumption (VO2), Participants With Bilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Breath-by-Breath VO2 was collected as participants walked on a treadmill at self selected fast, normal, and slow speeds. Participants walked for 6 minutes at each speed (and in each experimental condition). VO2 was normalized energy expenditure to each participant's biological mass (i.e., body mass without prosthesis) Normalized VO2 data were averaged to produce 30-s values for minutes 3-6 of each trial. These 30-s values were used in for the described analyses. Both gross and net VO2 were examined, but produced similar results, so only gross VO2 results are reported.

  3. Six-minute Walk Test (6MWT), Participants With Unilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Participants were asked to walk as far as possible in 6 minutes. Participants walked around cones placed 30m apart in a level hallway. Total distance (in meters) walked in 6 minutes was recorded.

  4. Six-minute Walk Test (6MWT), Participants With Bilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Participants were asked to walk as far as possible in 6 minutes. Participants walked around cones placed 30m apart in a level hallway. Total distance (in meters) walked in 6 minutes was recorded.

  5. Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (CR100), Participants With Unilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Participants were asked to self-report their level of perceived exertion after completing the 6MWT. Participants were shown the Borg CR100 rating scale and asked to identify their level of exertion on a scale ranging from 0 to 120. Higher scores mean greater exertion.

  6. Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (CR100), Participants With Bilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Participants were asked to self-report their level of perceived exertion after completing the 6MWT. Participants were shown the Borg CR100 rating scale and asked to identify their level of exertion on a scale ranging from 0 to 120. Higher scores mean greater exertion.

  7. Walking Speed, Participants With Unilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Walking speed (m/s) was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).

  8. Walking Speed, Participants With Bilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Walking speed (m/s) was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).

  9. Step Width, Participants With Unilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Step width was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).

  10. Step Width, Participants With Bilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Step width was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT).

  11. Step Length, Participants With Unilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Step length (cm) was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Step length is reported for both the prosthetic and sound (intact) limbs.

  12. Step Length, Participants With Bilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Step length (cm) was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Step length is reported for both the prosthetic and sound (intact) limbs.

  13. Step Time, Participants With Unilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Step time was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Step time is reported for both the prosthetic and sound (intact) limbs.

  14. Step Time, Participants With Bilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    Step time was assessed with a 16-foot CIR GAITRite instrumented walkway while participants performed the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Step time is reported for both the prosthetic and sound (intact) limbs.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Daily Step Activity, Participants With Unilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants' step count data from the 2 weeks prior to in-person testing.

    Daily step activity (steps / day) were measured over the 2-week period prior to assessment using a Orthocare Innovations Stepwatch 3 activity monitor.

  2. Daily Step Activity, Participants With Bilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants' step count data from the 2 weeks prior to in-person testing.

    Daily step activity (steps / day) were measured over the 2-week period prior to assessment using a Orthocare Innovations Stepwatch 3 activity monitor.

  3. Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), Participants With Unilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    The PLUS-M is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's prosthetic mobility. It is scored using a standardized T-score centered on a national sample of unilateral lower limb prosthesis users (mean = 50, standard deviation = 10). Participants were administered the PLUS-M computerized adaptive test and 12-item form on an iPad tablet. The most precise score (i.e., score with the lowest error) was used for analysis. Absolute score range from 0 to 100. Higher T-scores indicate greater mobility.

  4. Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), Participants With Bilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    The PLUS-M is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's prosthetic mobility. It is scored using a standardized T-score centered on a national sample of unilateral lower limb prosthesis users (mean = 50, standard deviation = 10). Participants were administered the PLUS-M computerized adaptive test and 12-item form on an iPad tablet. The most precise score (i.e., score with the lowest error) was used for analysis. Absolute score range from 0 to 100. Higher T-scores indicate greater mobility.

  5. Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System - Fatigue (PROMIS-Fatigue), Participants With Unilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    The PROMIS-Fatigue is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's symptoms and effects of fatigue. It is scored using a standardized T-score centered on the US general population (mean = 50, standard deviation = 10). Participants were administered the computerized adaptive test and a 12-item short form on an iPad tablet. The most precise score (i.e., score with the lowest error) was used for analysis. Absolute score range from 0 to 100. Higher T-scores indicate greater fatigue.

  6. Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System - Fatigue (PROMIS-Fatigue), Participants With Bilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    The PROMIS-Fatigue is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's symptoms and effects of fatigue. It is scored using a standardized T-score centered on the US general population (mean = 50, standard deviation = 10). Participants were administered the computerized adaptive test and a 12-item short form on an iPad tablet. The most precise score (i.e., score with the lowest error) was used for analysis. Absolute score range from 0 to 100. Higher T-scores indicate greater fatigue.

  7. Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), Participants With Unilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    The ABC is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's confidence in performing normal daily activities. It is scored from 0 to 4. Participants were administered an electronic version of the ABC on an iPad tablet. Scores range from 0 to 4. Higher scores indicate greater balance confidence.

  8. Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), Participants With Bilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    The ABC is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's confidence in performing normal daily activities. It is scored from 0 to 4. Participants were administered an electronic version of the ABC on an iPad tablet. Scores range from 0 to 4. Higher scores indicate greater balance confidence.

  9. Trinity Amputation Prosthesis Experience Scales, Revised (TAPES-R), Participants With Unilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    The TAPES-R is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's activity restrictions and satisfaction with a prosthesis. The TAPES-R has three subscales (activity restrictions [TAPES-AR], functional satisfaction [TAPES-FUN], and aesthetic satisfaction [TAPES-AES], each scored from 0 to 2. Higher scores indicate more activity restrictions (TAPES-AR) or greater satisfaction (TAPES-FUN and TAPES-AES). Participants were administered an electronic version of the TAPES-R on an iPad tablet.

  10. Trinity Amputation Prosthesis Experience Scales, Revised (TAPES-R), Participants With Bilateral Amputation

    Time frame: Participants were tested after using each foot in their prosthesis for 1 month.

    The TAPES-R is a self-report instrument designed to evaluate respondent's activity restrictions and satisfaction with a prosthesis. The TAPES-R has three subscales (activity restrictions [TAPES-AR], functional satisfaction [TAPES-FUN], and aesthetic satisfaction [TAPES-AES], each scored from 0 to 2. Higher scores indicate more activity restrictions (TAPES-AR) or greater satisfaction (TAPES-FUN and TAPES-AES). Participants were administered an electronic version of the TAPES-R on an iPad tablet.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Washington

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Endurance, Energy Expenditure, Perceived Function, and Satisfaction of Persons With Transtibial Limb Loss Using a Running-Specific Prosthesis Modified for Walking

Important dates

Study start
2015
Primary completion
2018
Study completion
2018
First posted
May 12, 2015
Registry last updated
Aug 2, 2023

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.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.