Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Institution Nationale des Invalides | OTHER |
| Hôpital Filieris de Freyming-Merlebach | UNKNOWN |
| Ortho Access | UNKNOWN |
| H20 Orthopedie |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Transtibial amputation significantly impacts patient autonomy and quality of life, primarily due to the limitations of conventional rigid sockets, which restrict comfort and joint range of motion. The Access Socket (AS) is an innovative prosthetic socket combining a rigid carbon-fiber structure in key load-bearing areas with flexible urethane-resin (ProtheFLEX®) zones in regions typically rigid in conventional sockets. This hybrid design aims to improve comfort and pressure distribution while preserving the mechanical properties required for ambulation.
The AS has already demonstrated benefits in transfemoral amputees and is now reimbursed in France for that population. A preliminary uncontrolled study in 12 transtibial amputees suggested significant improvements in perceived function, comfort, satisfaction, and mobility.
This multicenter, randomized, open-label, two-arm crossover study aims to compare the (AS) with the standard rigid socket (RS) in 25 adults with transtibial amputation. Participants will wear each socket for approximately 4 weeks (after a 1-2 week adaptation period) in a randomized order. The primary outcome is the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Secondary outcomes include comfort (SCS), satisfaction (OPUS), psychosocial adjustment (TAPES-R), mobility (PLUS-M), prosthesis utility (PEQ-U), and the proportion of patients electing to keep the AS at study completion.
Background. Lower-limb amputation affects more than 7,500 people annually in France, with approximately 50% at the transtibial level. The socket is the critical interface between the residual limb and the prosthesis, transmitting mechanical forces while needing to remain comfortable. Currently, only RS (carbon or resin) are listed on the French reimbursable products list (LPPR) for transtibial amputation. Documented limitations of rigid sockets include restricted knee flexion, walking discomfort in challenging environments, donning difficulties, and suboptimal pressure distribution that does not adapt to residual-limb volume changes.
Investigational device. The AS follows the same molding and shaping principles as the standard RS but differs in two manufacturing steps: (1) carbon fibers are placed only on lateral, postero-inferior, and inferior areas to provide structural rigidity; (2) stratification uses urethane resin (ProtheFLEX®, already used in medical-device manufacturing) instead of epoxy or acrylic resin, creating soft zones in regions typically rigid in conventional sockets.
Comparator. Both sockets are manufactured from the same plaster mold to ensure strictly identical internal geometry. Only the material structure (carbon/urethane distribution) differs; all other prosthetic components (intermediate piece, prosthetic foot) are identical.
Design rationale. A double-blind design is not feasible because participants can perceive differences in socket rigidity and prosthesis weight. The crossover design controls for between-subject variability and order effects.
Sample size. Based on the preliminary study (Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) standard deviation 1.74), to detect a difference of 1.3 points (the PSFS MDC₉₀ for 3 items) with 80% power and α=0.05, 19 participants are required. 25 will be enrolled to account for dropouts and to provide a more representative sample for secondary endpoints.
Visits. Four study visits over approximately 14-21 weeks per participant: inclusion (V0), evaluation after first socket period (V1), evaluation after second socket period (V2), and an optional follow-up visit (V3) one month later if the participant elects to keep the AS.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (RS -> AS) | Active Comparator | Participants wear their standard rigid socket (RS) for 4 weeks, complete evaluation, then switch to the Access Socket (AS) for 1-2 weeks of adaptation followed by 4 weeks of wear, with a second evaluation. |
|
| Group 2 (AS -> RS) | Active Comparator | Participants receive the Access Socket (AS) first, with 1-2 weeks of adaptation followed by 4 weeks of wear and evaluation. They then switch to the standard rigid socket (RS) for 1-2 weeks of adaptation and 4 weeks of wear, with a second evaluation. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access Socket (AS) | Device | Hybrid prosthetic socket combining a rigid carbon-fiber structure in load-bearing areas (lateral, postero-inferior, inferior) with flexible urethane-resin (ProtheFLEX®) zones in regions typically rigid in conventional sockets. Manufactured from the same plaster mold as the rigid socket to ensure identical internal geometry. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) score | Patient-centered self-report tool. The patient identifies 3-5 specific activities they have difficulty performing, then rates their ability on a 0-10 scale (0 = unable to perform, 10 = able to perform at pre-injury level). The final score is the mean of the ratings | One time at the end of each 4-week wear period (V1, V2 and V3) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Socket Comfort Scale (SCS) score | 0-10 numerical rating of socket comfort (0 = least comfortable imaginable, 10 = most comfortable imaginable) | One time at the end of each 4-week wear period (V1, V2 and V3) |
| Orthotics Prosthetics Users Survey (OPUS) score |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isabelle Loiret, MD | Contact | +33383529950 | isabelle.loiretpro@gmail.com | |
| Jonathan Pierret, PhD | Contact | jonathan.pierret@ugecam.assurance-maladie.fr |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isabelle Loiret, MD | Institut Régional de Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation (IRR), Nancy, France | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hôpital National d'Instruction des Armées (HNIA) Percy | Recruiting | Clamart | 92140 | France |
: Individual participant data will not be shared. Aggregated study results will be published in scientific journals and a summary report will be transmitted to the CPP within 12 months of study completion
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| UNKNOWN |
| Otto Bock France SNC | INDUSTRY |
| Hôpital d'Instruction des armées Percy | UNKNOWN |
| Clinical Investigation Center - University Hospital Grenoble | UNKNOWN |
Open-label, two-arm randomized crossover trial. Each participant wears both sockets sequentially in a randomized order. Each socket period includes a 1-2 week adaptation/adjustment phase followed by a 4-week wear period before evaluation.
Not provided
Not provided
Double-blinding not feasible: participants can perceive differences in socket rigidity and prosthesis weight
Not provided
|
| Rigid Socket (RS) | Device | Conventional definitive carbon-fiber rigid socket, currently the only socket type reimbursed in France for transtibial amputation (LPPR-listed). Standard of care comparator. |
|
Self-report instrument evaluating functional outcomes and quality of life specifically for orthosis and prosthesis users. Assesses lower-limb functional status, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with the device, and satisfaction with services. The higher the score, the more favorable the result for the device |
| One time at the end of each 4-week wear period (V1, V2 and V3) |
| Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scale - Revised (TAPES-R) score | 33-item multidimensional questionnaire evaluating psychosocial adjustment to amputation and prosthesis use, including general adjustment, social adjustment, activity restriction, and prosthesis satisfaction. The higher the global score, the more favorable the result for the device | One time at the end of each 4-week wear period (V1, V2 and V3) |
| Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire - Utility subscale (PEQ-U) score | The score is calculated as the mean of the 8 items in the subscale. Each item is rated on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 0 to 100. The total score ranges from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate a better outcome (greater satisfaction and prosthesis utility) | One time at the end of each 4-week wear period (V1, V2 and V3) |
| Proportion of participants electing to keep the Access Socket at study completion | Percentage of participants who choose the AS over the RS at the end of the study, reported with 95% confidence interval. Participants are not informed of this option until the end of the study to avoid judgment bias | Through study completion, an average of 10 weeks |
| Hôpital Filieris de Freyming-Merlebach | Recruiting | Freyming-Merlebach | 57804 | France |
|
| CHU Grenoble Alpes - Hôpital Sud | Recruiting | Grenoble | 38434 | France |
|
| Institut Régional de Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation (IRR) - Filière Locomoteur | Recruiting | Nancy | 54000 | France |
|
| Insititution Nationale des Invalides | Recruiting | Paris | 75007 | France |
|