Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This investigation aims to compare the functional performance of a new passive microprocessor-controlled Prosthetic Knee to subjects usual microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee.
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:
i) 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.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| NAVii | Experimental | Users will be fitted with a new microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee for 3 weeks to compare to their usual device. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAVii | Device | Passive Microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | for analysis data from visit 2 (3 weeks after visit 1) and visit 3 (3 weeks after visit 2) were used |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | for the final analysis data from visit 2 (3 weeks after visit 1) and visit 3 (3 weeks after visit 2) were used |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Kurt N Gruben, CPO | Ossur Americas | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bionic P & O | Merrillville | Indiana | 46410 | United States | ||
| Oakland Orthopedic appliances |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | All Participants | Users will be fitted with a new microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee for 3 weeks to compare to their usual device. NAVii: Passive Microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | All Participants | Users will be fitted with a new microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee for 3 weeks to compare to their usual device. NAVii: Passive Microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 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. | Posted | Median | 89% Confidence Interval | score on a scale | for analysis data from visit 2 (3 weeks after visit 1) and visit 3 (3 weeks after visit 2) were used |
|
adverse event data were collected over the time of participation starting with the first visit until the third visit (6 weeks for each participant)
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | All Participants | Users will be fitted with a new microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee for 3 weeks to compare to their usual device. NAVii: Passive Microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee |
Not provided
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fall | Social circumstances | Non-systematic Assessment | subject fell after a friend had switched off the device as a joke |
Prosthetic use time was not monitored or controlled for during the adaptation time period, the actual time each subject used the investigational device is therefore unknown.
The sample of the trial represents only a small portion of the whole population with above knee amputation.
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lisa Tronicke | Össur ehf. | +4915155367970 | ltronicke@ossur.com |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Jun 29, 2022 | Sep 26, 2025 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
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.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Bay City |
| Michigan |
| 48708 |
| United States |
| Perry Prosthetics | Perrysburg | Ohio | 43551 | United States |
| Ossur Motionlab | Reykjavik | 110 | Iceland |
| years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected | Race and Ethnicity were not collected from any participant. | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| PLUS-M T-Score | Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), self-report instrument measuring mobility of adults with lower limb amputation. Scoring a PLUS-M short form produces a T-score. T-score equals the sum for all responses on the short form (creating a raw score). 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. | Mean | Standard Deviation | T-score |
|
| Socket Comfort Score | self-report; the amputee rates their socket comfort on a 10-point Likert scale where 0 is "most uncomfortable" and 10 is "most comfortable". It is assumed that for subjects with a score of 5 or lower the socket comfort is too low and may affect other study parameters. | Mean | Standard Deviation | scores on a scale |
|
Users will be fitted with a new microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee for 3 weeks to compare to their usual device. NAVii: Passive Microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee |
|
|
| Secondary | 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. | One subject had only limited lung function. At the first visit, the subject wanted to give it a try to walk the full 6 minutes, but the measurement was aborted by the investigators as the test was considered too demanding. The 6 MWT was skipped for that subject in the consecutive visits. One subject did not complete the 6 MWT at the last visit with Rheo knee as the subject reported on functional issues of the knee. Their CPO has taken care of the issue. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | meter | for the final analysis data from visit 2 (3 weeks after visit 1) and visit 3 (3 weeks after visit 2) were used |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 14 |
| 0 |
| 14 |
| 1 |
| 14 |
|
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided