Skip to content

Comparison Between Three Types of Prosthetic Feet

Comparison Between Three Types of Prosthetic Feet: a Randomized Double-blind Controlled Single-subject Multiple-rater Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03046394
Acronym
ProSto
Enrollment
1
Registered
2017-02-08
Start date
2017-02-06
Completion date
2017-05-03
Last updated
2017-05-04

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Amputation; Traumatic, Leg, Lower, Between Knee and Ankle

Keywords

prosthetic feet, gait pattern, one leg standing, walking speed

Brief summary

One Solid Ankle Cushion Heel (SACH) and two Dynamic Elastic Response (DER) prosthetic feet will be tried six times in random order by the patient. The patient will be an active prosthetic foot user who walks several kilometers per day and was amputated at the trans-tibial level because of injury. Gait pattern will be rated in comparison with the patient's previous prosthetic foot by a physiatrist, physiotherapist, prosthetist and the patient. One-leg standing and 10-meter walking tests will also be performed.

Detailed description

The prosthetic feet will be: one SACH foot (by Otto Bock - foot C, advertised for activity category 1) and two DER feet (Dynamic Motion by Otto Bock - foot B, advertised for activity category 2-3; and Triton by Otto Bock - foot A, advertised for activity category 3-4). All the prosthetic feet are of the same size and chosen for the patient's weight. They will be covered so that neither the patient nor professionals will be able to see which prosthetic foot is being used. The study is blinded because the prosthetist designated for changing the prosthetic feet will be the only one who will know which prosthetic is being used. The orientational sample size calculation and the randomisation plan were prepared by a statistician. The first trial will be performed using the patient's own prosthetic foot in order to establish a baseline. The patient will then have to to compare the prosthetic feet with his own existing prosthetic foot and rate the ability to walk on even terrain (100m), uneven terrain (grass, 100m), decline and incline (i.e., slope), and up and down the stairs (one floor) on a five-point Likert-type scale (-2 much worse, -1 slightly worse, 0 the same, 1 slightly better, 2 much better). After each trial he will also perform the one-leg standing test (with three repetitions) and the 10-meter walking test. Before each trial, the patient will be given 15 minutes for adaptation to each new prosthetic foot without the presence of the assessors. The three expert observers will be: a physical and rehabilitation medicine specialist physician, a certified prosthetist-orthotist, and a physiotherapist. Each has got over 20 years of experience in rehabilitation of patients after amputation and observation of their gait. They will be blind to the currently used prosthetic foot. They will follow the patient and assess his walking using the same rating scale in comparison with the initial trial as the patient.

Interventions

DEVICEA-DER

Triton by Otto Bock, advertised for activity category 3-4

DEVICEC-SACH

Solid Ankle Cushion Heel by Otto Bock, advertised for activity category 1

DEVICEB-DER

Dynamic Motion by Otto Bock, advertised for activity category 2-3

Sponsors

University Rehabilitation Institute, Republic of Slovenia
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
SEQUENTIAL
Primary purpose
DEVICE_FEASIBILITY
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
20 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* active prosthetic foot user who walks several kilometers per day * amputation at the trans-tibial level \>5 years ago

Exclusion criteria

* other medical problems

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
RatingImmediately after each trialLikert-type, compared to the patient's existing prosthetic foot (-2 much worse, -1 slightly worse, 0 the same, 1 slightly better, 2 much better)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
The time that the patient can stand on the prosthetic footImmediately after the rating, repeated 3 timesMeasured by the one-leg standing test (average of three repetitions)
Walking velocityImmediately after the one-leg standing testMeasured by the 10-meter walking test

Countries

Slovenia

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026