AzTrials
AzTrials

Lower Limb AmputationDoDNCT03927404

Development of Adaptive Vacuum Suspension to Improve Prosthetic Fit and Residual Limb Health

A study testing Active vacuum test prosthesis in people with Lower Limb Amputation, run by Indiana University at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The purpose of the study is to evaluate residual limb circulation and skin health associated with the use of a prosthetic vacuum socket. A conventional non-vacuum prosthetic socket will be compared to a vacuum prosthetic socket. The prosthetic suspension plays a pivotal role in an amputee's comfort. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 80 years
Conditions the study is for
Lower Limb Amputation
What is being tested?
Active vacuum test prosthesis
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
60 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
12 Feb 2020to 6 Sep 2021
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 80 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Ages of 18 and above
  • Unilateral transtibial or transfemoral amputee
  • Ambulate at a K2 level or higher
  • At least 3 months post-amputation per physician discretion
  • Residual limb length greater than 6.5 inches in length
  • Able to follow directions and give informed consent on their own or through Legally Authorized Representative.
  • Must be able to ambulate without assistance. An external assistance device such as cane or walker will be permitted.
  • Adequate arterial blood flow as evidenced by a TcOM >30mmHg measured within the past 12 months.

Who cannot join

  • Conditions that prevent wearing a prosthetic socket,such as existing scab, ulcer, or keloid scar on amputation stump.
  • Cognitive deficits or mental health problems that would limit ability to consent and participate fully in the study protocol
  • Women who are pregnant or who plan to become pregnant in the near future

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • IU Health Methodist Hospital

    Indianapolis, Indiana, 46202

Other trials in United States

About this study

The purpose of the study is to evaluate residual limb circulation and skin health associated with the use of a prosthetic vacuum socket. A conventional non-vacuum prosthetic socket will be compared to a vacuum prosthetic socket.

The prosthetic suspension plays a pivotal role in an amputee's comfort. It can also significantly impact an amputee's limb health. If the prosthesis is not held securely to the amputee's limb, relative movement between the limb and prosthetic interface can cause bruising, skin irritation and skin breakdown. These poor outcomes are uncomfortable and can lead to much more serious health conditions. A positive solution to creating secure and comfortable suspension is the use of a vacuum suspension socket. The vacuum pressure assists in preventing movement in the socket. The clinical benefits associated with vacuum suspension include volume retention, increased proprioception, secure suspension, and frequently reported observations of wound healing. However, the long term effects of vacuum suspension on circulation remain undetermined or undocumented. This study examines a vacuum suspension system on the health of the residual limb (amputated limb). A vacuum socket creates a vacuum between the rigid prosthetic socket and prosthetic liner which is sealed to the socket. Therefore, vacuum is not directly applied to the skin of the residual limb.

Read the detailed description

There are a total of 3 study visits, (some visits may be broken into separate visits per preference of subject), including socket fitting visits (which could be 2 separate visits), a baseline visit, and a final visit. During the socket visit, which may consist of a three visits plus socket adjustments (as needed by the participant) on separate days (up to 4 weeks), limb shape capture, measurement or tracing, diagnostic static fitting and diagnostic static fitting, and delivery of a definitive "research" socket will be done. At the baseline visit, participants will perform seated tasks, standing tasks, and treadmill walking tasks. Residual limb health measurements will be taken before and after the activity period, including surface electrical capacitance, Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL) measurement, hyperspectral imaging, Hitachi Aloka ultrasound imaging, Blood Flow, and digital imaging during the baseline visit as well. The final visit, using the research socket, will consist of the same tasks and measurements as the baseline visit and questionnaires will be completed. The subject may choose to break up the final visit tasks into 2 different visits if desired.

After completion of the study, participants will be given the choice to keep the research socket or return to using their original prosthesis as normal. The study prosthetist will be available to review and adjust the fit of their standard of care prosthesis at this time. Note: Due to physical change and limb volume fluctuation over the study period, it is possible that at the end of the study the standard of care prosthesis will not fit your residual limb as it does at the beginning of the study. At the completion of the study, it is recommended that the subject follow up with their primary care prosthetist for socket evaluation and fitting.

There may be risks that are not known about at this time. Side effects, risks, and discomforts may result from study participation .While the goal of this project is to create a more comfortable prosthesis, it is possible that the subject could experience discomforts commonly associated with prosthesis use, such as perspiration, dry skin, rash, itching, blisters, high pressure in the socket, looseness in the socket, and mechanical rubbing that leads to ulceration which may lead to infection and additional surgery. Subjects with low levels of arterial blood flow have an additional risk of ulceration.

  • Prosthesis placement: While the goal of this project is to create a more comfortable prosthesis, it is possible that the subject could experience discomforts commonly associated with prosthesis use, such as perspiration, dry skin, rash, itching, blisters, high pressure in the socket, looseness in the socket, and mechanical rubbing that leads to ulceration.
  • Treadmill task:There is a risk of falling during the research activities. This risk is mitigated by the ability of participants to self-select pace for the treadmill task and observation of treadmill activities by research staff.
  • Transcutaneous Oxygen Measurement (TcOM) and skin temperature: The PeriFlux System 5000 uses non-invasive probes that will measure the skin temperature and transcutaneous Oxygen Measurement and poses minimal risk to the subject. The probe head is affixed to the residual limb by an adhesive sticker. Removal of the sticker after data acquisition may cause minor discomfort similar to removing a small band-aid.
  • Hyperspectral Imaging: This non-invasive imaging technique poses minimal risk to the subject. A small fiduciary marker sticker is placed on the subject's limb to calibrate camera settings. Removal of the sticker after imaging may cause minor discomfort similar to removing a small band-aid.
  • Hitachi Aloka Ultrasound:Ultrasound imaging is a noninvasive technique and is a minimal risk procedure.
  • TEWL and Surface Electrical Capacitance Measurements: TEWL and Surface Electrical Capacitance measurements are noninvasive and propose less than minimal risk.

Subjects will be queried on self-reported measures of user comfort and performance. Briefly, four subjective measures will be completed: VR-36, PEQ, SCS, and measures from the NIH PROMIS

The CHAMP test will be used to assess overall amputee performance and the effect of the socket suspension intervention over time. The conglomeration of clinical assessment tools into the CHAMP was specifically done to measure high-level mobility in service members with a lower limb amputation. CHAMP consists of the Single Leg Stance Test (SLS), the Edgren Side Step Test (ESST), Illinois Agility Test (IAT), and T Test.

IU Neuroscience Gait lab will be used to collect kinematic data. The laboratory is equipped with an instrumented treadmill and infrared camera system. A harness system will be used to provide support and safety for the amputees while study participants walk on the treadmill for 6 minutes.

Being tested
Active vacuum test prosthesis
Keywords
Transfemoral Amputees, Transtibial Amputees, Prosthesis

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Active vacuum test prosthesisDevice

    Also called Limb logic system

    The adaptive vacuum prosthesis is sold as a commercial device by the company Willow Wood with suggested U.S. L-Code L5781. The device is designated as a Class 1 Medical Device and 510(K) Exempt. This category is part of a low or moderate risk to patient safety and health. The Prosthetic socket system uses an active vacuum pump to push air out of the socket. The level of vacuum is controlled by hardware that automatically detects the socket fit based on in-socket motion and adjusts vacuum as needed to eliminate this motion.

Study groups in NCT03927404
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Adaptive Vacuum test ProsthesisExperimentalThe experimental socket system uses an active vacuum pump to push air out of the socket. The level of vacuum is controlled by hardware that automatically detects the socket fit based on in-socket motion and adjusts vacuum as needed to eliminate this motion.
Receives: Device: Active vacuum test prosthesis

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Ratio of Trans-epidermal Water Loss (TEWL) at 16 Weeks After Use

    Trans-epidermal Water Loss in 16 wks. Higher TEWL value represents a worse outcome with loss of skin barrier function.

    The value reported is the ratio of the TEWL of residual limb over TEWL value of the sound side limb.

    Measured: Baseline and 16 Weeks

Secondary outcomes (2)
  1. Change in Hyperspectral Imaging at 16 Wks

    Change from baseline in Hyperspectral Imaging at 16 wks; tissue oxygenation measured using hyperspectral imaging. Higher the HbO2 better is the perfusion in skin indicating less damage.

    Measured: Baseline to16 weeks

  2. Ultrasound Measurements at 16 Wks

    In elasto-mode the blue color represents less elastic skin and weak tensile strength. whereas red is more elastic skin and high tensile strength. The blue \& red color intensities in elasto mode were calculated in Matlab as arbitrary units (AU). The data presented is median of the AU. A lower AU meaning better tensile strength of the tissue meaning favorable outcome.

    Measured: 16 weeks

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted25 Apr 2019
  2. Study start12 Feb 2020
  3. Primary completion25 Aug 2021
  4. Study completion6 Sep 2021

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Basic science
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Model description
This is a 16 weeks longitudinal study where subjects will serve their own control. A baseline measurement will be done prior to start of intervention that will continue for 16 weeks and a final measurement will be taken at the end of 16 weeks.
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
60 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03927404
Sponsor's protocol ID
1809327674
Other IDs
W81XWH-16-2-0059
Acronym
DoD
Status last verified
May 2024
First submitted
23 Apr 2019
Last updated
24 May 2024
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes

Publications

  • Epstein RA, Heinemann AW, McFarland LV. Quality of life for veterans and servicemembers with major traumatic limb loss from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(4):373-85. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2009.03.0023.

    PubMed 20803405
  • Schultz AE, Baade SP, Kuiken TA. Expert opinions on success factors for upper-limb prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2007;44(4):483-9. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2006.08.0087.

    PubMed 18247245
  • Zachariah SG, Saxena R, Fergason JR, Sanders JE. Shape and volume change in the transtibial residuum over the short term: preliminary investigation of six subjects. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004 Sep;41(5):683-94. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2003.10.0153.

    PubMed 15558398
  • Fernie GR, Holliday PJ. Volume fluctuations in the residual limbs of lower limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1982 Apr;63(4):162-5.

    PubMed 7082139
  • Sanders JE, Fatone S. Residual limb volume change: systematic review of measurement and management. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(8):949-86. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2010.09.0189.

    PubMed 22068373
  • Krueger CA, Wenke JC, Ficke JR. Ten years at war: comprehensive analysis of amputation trends. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Dec;73(6 Suppl 5):S438-44. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318275469c.

    PubMed 23192067
  • Ramasamy A, Hill AM, Phillip R, Gibb I, Bull AM, Clasper JC. The modern "deck-slap" injury--calcaneal blast fractures from vehicle explosions. J Trauma. 2011 Dec;71(6):1694-8. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318227a999.

    PubMed 21808204
  • Bui KM, Raugi GJ, Nguyen VQ, Reiber GE. Skin problems in individuals with lower-limb loss: literature review and proposed classification system. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(9):1085-90. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2009.04.0052.

    PubMed 20437314
  • Harris AM, Althausen PL, Kellam J, Bosse MJ, Castillo R; Lower Extremity Assessment Project (LEAP) Study Group. Complications following limb-threatening lower extremity trauma. J Orthop Trauma. 2009 Jan;23(1):1-6. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31818e43dd.

    PubMed 19104297

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Active vacuum test prosthesis in people with Lower Limb Amputation, run by Indiana University at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 8 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 May 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 24 May 2024). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Ratio of Trans-epidermal Water Loss (TEWL) at 16 Weeks After Use (time frame: Baseline and 16 Weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03927404, which also lists 9 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 May 2024.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in