Foot DropNCT04594837
Ankle Robotics After Stroke
A study testing PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II), Physical Therapy Only (Phase II) and Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II) in people with Foot Drop and Stroke, run by NextStep Robotics Inc. at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The randomized study (in Phase II of the U44) compares the efficacy and durability of 9 weeks (18 sessions) of robot-assisted physical therapy (PTR) versus physical therapy (PT) alone on foot drop as assessed by gait biomechanics (ankle angle at initial contact, peak swing ankle angle, number of heel-first strikes - %… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Foot Drop, Stroke, Hemiparesis
- What is being tested?
- PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II), Physical Therapy Only (Phase II) and Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II)
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 140 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 20 Aug 2020to 28 Feb 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Ages 18 and older
- In the subacute phase of stroke recovery (>6 weeks to <6 months post-stroke) with residual hemiparesis of the lower extremity that includes symptoms of foot-drop. - or - In the chronic phase of stroke recovery (>6 months post-stroke) with residual hemiparesis of the lower extremity that includes symptoms of foot-drop.
- Clear indications of hemiparetic gait by clinical observation
Who cannot join
- Cardiac history of (a) unstable angina, (b) recent (less than 3 months) myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure (NYHA category II); (c) hemodynamically significant valvular dysfunction
- Hypertension that is a contraindication for routine physical therapy (greater than 160/100 on two assessments).
- Medical History: (a) recent hospitalization (less than 3 months) for severe medical disease, (b) symptomatic peripheral arterial occlusive disease, (c) orthopedic or chronic pain conditions that significantly alter gait function, (d) pulmonary or renal failure (e) active cancer
- History of non-stroke neuromuscular disorder restricting gait.
- Aphasia or cognitive functioning that confounds participation, defined as unable to follow 2 step commands or judgment of the medical officer or therapist.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Richard Macko, MD contact
United States1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
University of Maryland Rehabilitation & Orthopaedic Institute
Baltimore, Maryland, 21207
Josh Rudnicki, 443-869-3518, JRudnicki@som.umaryland.edu
About this study
Official title: Portable Ankle Robotics to Reverse Foot Drop After Stroke
The randomized study (in Phase II of the U44) compares the efficacy and durability of 9 weeks (18 sessions) of robot-assisted physical therapy (PTR) versus physical therapy (PT) alone on foot drop as assessed by gait biomechanics (ankle angle at initial contact, peak swing ankle angle, number of heel-first strikes - % total steps, gait velocity) and blinded clinician assessment (dorsiflexion active range of motion, ankle muscle strength, assistive device needs).
Read the detailed description
This proposal investigates a portable ankle robot (AMBLE) to be used during over-ground mobility training to reduce foot drop and improve walking function in hemiparetic (half-body, partially paralyzed stroke patients with foot drop (inability to properly lift and clear the foot during walking. About 30% of stroke survivors are left with permanent ankle weakness that impairs their mobility and increases fall-risk. Currently, stroke survivors with foot drop live with a cane or other assistive device, and often ankle-foot braces (AFOs) for safety. These assistive devices do not reverse or reduce the underlying neurological foot drop problem. Recognizing the crucial role of ankle function in walking and balance, and recognizing that the distal part of the lower extremity often suffers the greatest damage after a human stroke, the investigators have come up with a portable ankle robot as a tool for therapists to help shape recovery of walking.
The AMBLE, and its underlying control system, uses information about how patients are walking from one step to another to assist and shape foot lifting so as to help re- train walking recovery by a process that neuroscientists call motor learning. It is the combination of the partially paralyzed stroke survivor's movement efforts with timely assistance "only as needed" by the robot that investigators and others show is the key to movement recovery after stroke. Thus, the ankle robot is not a crutch, but a learning and measuring device that incrementally "gets out of the way" of the learner to facilitate human robot learning such that the human takes over more of the volitional learning.
The research team at University of Maryland has demonstrated in 4 prior studies using seated and treadmill based robot assisted training using a bulky laboratory robot programmed with a motor learning formula that can improve ankle motor control in both the early and chronic phases of stroke, and this can improve over-ground unassisted walking. A significant proportion of stroke survivors showed session by session recovery of volitional (not assisted by the robot) ankle lifting during walking across 6 weeks of three 30- 45 minute sessions of robot training while walking on a treadmill, even years after their stroke. In fact, it has been found that two weeks of 3 sessions per week ankle robotics training was the time profile for most motor learning recovery to reduce foot drop. This information has informed the design of the study described below.
Previous research was done using a bulky, heavy (~8 lbs), and expensive laboratory robot that only allowed seated or treadmill based training because it was tethered by wires. This greatly limits how it can be used by physical therapists, and is not appropriately configured for ease of use by physical therapists in practice. NextStep Robotics invented and built the ankle robots motor learning programs with a lot of input from physical therapists and other rehabilitation clinicians into a portable lightweight robot that can be used over-ground anywhere with blue tooth controls that also tell the therapist precisely how well the stroke survivors is learning, step by step. It is this new portable ankle robot that is configured for use in practice that investigators seek to test in studies with physical therapists using it fully integrated into their usual outpatient stroke mobility recovery training at University of Maryland Orthopedics and Rehabilitation Institute.
This U44 Award from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) is not a typical single phase randomized clinical study, but consists of Phase I that completes commercial design of the robot the first year, followed by Phase II randomized clinical trial across years 2-4 of a finalized commercial version of the ankle robot.
Phase II (following completion of commercial design in Phase I) is a randomized (group assignment by chance), blinded (outcome testing done by technicians unaware of patient group assignment), two arm (2 groups) study that investigates the hypothesis that in subacute (6 weeks to 6 months) stroke subjects with foot drop, AMBLE integrated physical therapy (PTR) consisting of 18 training sessions over nine weeks is more effective than usual physical therapy (PT) to improve foot drop outcomes measured by movement analyses of walking, and by standardized clinical assessments of walking including specific foot drop outcomes as assessed by a certified PT clinician (blinded to treatment assignment), cross checked by blinded review of 2 other clinicians of films of the standardized mobility assessments to provide a consensus impartial judgement. Notably, this Phase II study focuses on sub-acute stroke recovery (6 weeks to 6 months) because it represents a therapeutic window into which conventional outpatient physical therapy is typically front-loaded to optimize outcomes. This phase of stroke rehabilitation is selected to test the AMBLE in real world settings when outpatient physical therapy typically occurs, using a treatment frequency and duration (18 physical therapy sessions across 9 weeks) that is representative of practice in Maryland and most of the United States. If wearing the AMBLE robot during physical therapy in this time-frame reduces foot drop and improves longer term outcomes measured 3 months after all robotics therapy has ended, then the investigators will apply for FDA approval for the first robotics device to actively treat foot drop after stroke.
- Conditions
- Foot Drop, Stroke, Hemiparesis
- Being tested
- PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II), Physical Therapy Only (Phase II), Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II), Chronic Stroke Subjects to receive robotic gait training therapy.
- Medical subject headings
- Peroneal Neuropathies, Stroke, Paresis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II)Device
Also called PTR
Subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain.
Physical Therapy Only (Phase II)Other
Also called PT
Subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with therapist assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain.
Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II)Device
Also called X-PTR
Participants enrolled in the physical therapy only group will be given the option to re-enroll as a cross over participant to receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain.
Chronic Stroke Subjects to receive robotic gait training therapy.Device
Also called C-PTR
Chronic stroke subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| PTR (Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group) (Phase II) | Experimental | Subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain. Receives: Device: PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II) |
| PT (Physical Therapy Only) (Phase II) | Active comparator | Subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with therapist assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain. Receives: Other: Physical Therapy Only (Phase II) |
| X-PTR, Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. | Experimental | Participants enrolled in the physical therapy only group will be given the option to re-enroll as a cross over participant to receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain. Receives: Device: Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II) |
| C-PTR, Chronic Stroke Subjects to receive robotic gait training therapy. | Experimental | Chronic stroke subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain. Receives: Device: Chronic Stroke Subjects to receive robotic gait training therapy. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Angle at Initial Contact
Angle at initial contact averaged across each gait cycle for each subject at a given testing time point.
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Swing Dorsiflexion
Peak swing dorsiflexion averaged across each gait cycle for each subject at a given testing time point.
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Number of Heel-First Foot Strikes
Number of heel-first foot strikes for each subject at a given testing time point.
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Gait Velocity
Average gait velocity (meters/second) for each subject at a given testing time point.
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Secondary outcomes (12)
Active range of motion for Dorsiflexion
Active range of motion measured for dorsiflexion by blinded clinician.
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Ankle Muscle Strength
Measurement of ankle strength by blinded clinician using the MMT (manual muscle testing)
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Number of Participants Using Assistive Devices and Ankle Foot Orthoses
Number of Participants Using Assistive Devices and Ankle Foot Orthoses
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Dynamic Gait Index
Assesses gait, balance, and fall risk; ranges from 0-24; higher score is better
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Berg Balance Scale
A 14-item objective measure designed to assess static balance and fall risk; ranges from 0-56; higher score is better
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Stroke Impact Scale
A self-report questionnaire that evaluates disability and health-related quality of life after stroke.
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale
A self-report measure of balance confidence in performing various activities without losing balance; ranges from 0-1600; higher score is better
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression)
The Center of Epidemiological Studies-Depression, a 20-item measure that asks to rate how often over the past week the patient experienced symptoms associated with depression; ranges from 0-60; high scores indicating greater depressive symptoms.
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
NIH Stroke Scale
Tool used to quantify the impairment caused by a stroke, composed of 11 items; ranges from 0-42; higher score indicates greater impairment.
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Falls Efficacy Scale
A 16-item self-administered questionnaire designed to assess fear of falling; ranges 16-64; higher score indicates greater fear of falling.
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Fatigue Assessment Scale
10-item scale evaluating symptoms of fatigue; ranges from 10-50; higher score indicates greater levels of fatigue.
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Modified Ashworth Scale
Measures spasticity in patients; ranges from 0-4; higher score indicates more spasticity/rigidity.
Measured: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 Oct 2020
- Study start20 Aug 2020
- Primary completion28 Feb 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion28 Feb 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Foot DropStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 140 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- NextStep Robotics Inc.
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Brad Hennessie, MHA, MBA, Study director, NextStep Robotics Inc.
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04594837
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1 U44 111076-01
- Status last verified
- Jan 2023
- First submitted
- 14 Oct 2020
- Last updated
- 26 Jan 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Roy A, Hennessie B, Hafer-Macko C, Forrester LW, Westlake K, Macko RF. Adaptive control ankle robotics training durably improves gait biomechanics in chronic hemiparetic stroke and footdrop. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2025 Dec 29;23(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12984-025-01834-2.
PubMed 41462280Roy A, Hennessie B, Hafer-Macko C, Westlake K, Macko R. Dorsiflexion Specific Ankle Robotics to Enhance Motor Learning After Stroke: A Preliminary Report. Res Sq [Preprint]. 2024 Jun 25:rs.3.rs-4390770. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4390770/v1.
PubMed 38978605
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Jan 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Portable Ankle Robotics to Reverse Foot Drop After Stroke
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04594837
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 1 U44 111076-01
- Conditions
- Foot Drop, Stroke, Hemiparesis
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 140 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- NextStep Robotics Inc.Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Study start
- 20 Aug 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 28 Feb 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 28 Feb 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 20 Oct 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The randomized study (in Phase II of the U44) compares the efficacy and durability of 9 weeks (18 sessions) of robot-assisted physical therapy (PTR) versus physical therapy (PT) alone on foot drop as assessed by gait biomechanics (ankle angle at initial contact, peak swing ankle angle, number of heel-first strikes - % total steps, gait velocity) and blinded clinician assessment (dorsiflexion active range of motion, ankle muscle strength, assistive device needs).
Detailed description
This proposal investigates a portable ankle robot (AMBLE) to be used during over-ground mobility training to reduce foot drop and improve walking function in hemiparetic (half-body, partially paralyzed stroke patients with foot drop (inability to properly lift and clear the foot during walking. About 30% of stroke survivors are left with permanent ankle weakness that impairs their mobility and increases fall-risk. Currently, stroke survivors with foot drop live with a cane or other assistive device, and often ankle-foot braces (AFOs) for safety. These assistive devices do not reverse or reduce the underlying neurological foot drop problem. Recognizing the crucial role of ankle function in walking and balance, and recognizing that the distal part of the lower extremity often suffers the greatest damage after a human stroke, the investigators have come up with a portable ankle robot as a tool for therapists to help shape recovery of walking.
The AMBLE, and its underlying control system, uses information about how patients are walking from one step to another to assist and shape foot lifting so as to help re- train walking recovery by a process that neuroscientists call motor learning. It is the combination of the partially paralyzed stroke survivor's movement efforts with timely assistance "only as needed" by the robot that investigators and others show is the key to movement recovery after stroke. Thus, the ankle robot is not a crutch, but a learning and measuring device that incrementally "gets out of the way" of the learner to facilitate human robot learning such that the human takes over more of the volitional learning.
The research team at University of Maryland has demonstrated in 4 prior studies using seated and treadmill based robot assisted training using a bulky laboratory robot programmed with a motor learning formula that can improve ankle motor control in both the early and chronic phases of stroke, and this can improve over-ground unassisted walking. A significant proportion of stroke survivors showed session by session recovery of volitional (not assisted by the robot) ankle lifting during walking across 6 weeks of three 30- 45 minute sessions of robot training while walking on a treadmill, even years after their stroke. In fact, it has been found that two weeks of 3 sessions per week ankle robotics training was the time profile for most motor learning recovery to reduce foot drop. This information has informed the design of the study described below.
Previous research was done using a bulky, heavy (~8 lbs), and expensive laboratory robot that only allowed seated or treadmill based training because it was tethered by wires. This greatly limits how it can be used by physical therapists, and is not appropriately configured for ease of use by physical therapists in practice. NextStep Robotics invented and built the ankle robots motor learning programs with a lot of input from physical therapists and other rehabilitation clinicians into a portable lightweight robot that can be used over-ground anywhere with blue tooth controls that also tell the therapist precisely how well the stroke survivors is learning, step by step. It is this new portable ankle robot that is configured for use in practice that investigators seek to test in studies with physical therapists using it fully integrated into their usual outpatient stroke mobility recovery training at University of Maryland Orthopedics and Rehabilitation Institute.
This U44 Award from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) is not a typical single phase randomized clinical study, but consists of Phase I that completes commercial design of the robot the first year, followed by Phase II randomized clinical trial across years 2-4 of a finalized commercial version of the ankle robot.
Phase II (following completion of commercial design in Phase I) is a randomized (group assignment by chance), blinded (outcome testing done by technicians unaware of patient group assignment), two arm (2 groups) study that investigates the hypothesis that in subacute (6 weeks to 6 months) stroke subjects with foot drop, AMBLE integrated physical therapy (PTR) consisting of 18 training sessions over nine weeks is more effective than usual physical therapy (PT) to improve foot drop outcomes measured by movement analyses of walking, and by standardized clinical assessments of walking including specific foot drop outcomes as assessed by a certified PT clinician (blinded to treatment assignment), cross checked by blinded review of 2 other clinicians of films of the standardized mobility assessments to provide a consensus impartial judgement. Notably, this Phase II study focuses on sub-acute stroke recovery (6 weeks to 6 months) because it represents a therapeutic window into which conventional outpatient physical therapy is typically front-loaded to optimize outcomes. This phase of stroke rehabilitation is selected to test the AMBLE in real world settings when outpatient physical therapy typically occurs, using a treatment frequency and duration (18 physical therapy sessions across 9 weeks) that is representative of practice in Maryland and most of the United States. If wearing the AMBLE robot during physical therapy in this time-frame reduces foot drop and improves longer term outcomes measured 3 months after all robotics therapy has ended, then the investigators will apply for FDA approval for the first robotics device to actively treat foot drop after stroke.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| PTR (Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group) (Phase II) | Experimental | Device: PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II)Subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain. |
| PT (Physical Therapy Only) (Phase II) | Active comparator | Other: Physical Therapy Only (Phase II)Subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with therapist assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain. |
| X-PTR, Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. | Experimental | Device: Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II)Participants enrolled in the physical therapy only group will be given the option to re-enroll as a cross over participant to receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain. |
| C-PTR, Chronic Stroke Subjects to receive robotic gait training therapy. | Experimental | Device: Chronic Stroke Subjects to receive robotic gait training therapy.Chronic stroke subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Ages 18 and older
- In the subacute phase of stroke recovery (>6 weeks to <6 months post-stroke) with residual hemiparesis of the lower extremity that includes symptoms of foot-drop. - or - In the chronic phase of stroke recovery (>6 months post-stroke) with residual hemiparesis of the lower extremity that includes symptoms of foot-drop.
- Clear indications of hemiparetic gait by clinical observation
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Cardiac history of (a) unstable angina, (b) recent (less than 3 months) myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure (NYHA category II); (c) hemodynamically significant valvular dysfunction
- Hypertension that is a contraindication for routine physical therapy (greater than 160/100 on two assessments).
- Medical History: (a) recent hospitalization (less than 3 months) for severe medical disease, (b) symptomatic peripheral arterial occlusive disease, (c) orthopedic or chronic pain conditions that significantly alter gait function, (d) pulmonary or renal failure (e) active cancer
- History of non-stroke neuromuscular disorder restricting gait.
- Aphasia or cognitive functioning that confounds participation, defined as unable to follow 2 step commands or judgment of the medical officer or therapist.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II)Also: PTRSubjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain. | Device | PTR (Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group) (Phase II) |
| Physical Therapy Only (Phase II)Also: PTSubjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with therapist assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain. | Other | PT (Physical Therapy Only) (Phase II) |
| Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II)Also: X-PTRParticipants enrolled in the physical therapy only group will be given the option to re-enroll as a cross over participant to receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain. | Device | X-PTR, Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. |
| Chronic Stroke Subjects to receive robotic gait training therapy.Also: C-PTRChronic stroke subjects receive 18 one-hour PT training sessions over 9 weeks while wearing the robot initially parameterized to individual deficit severity. Subjects perform over-ground mobility tasks of increasing challenge with robotic assist, as needed. Training is generally divided into 3 phases based on individual ability to address gait deficits, postural transitions, physical demand and environmental terrain. | Device | C-PTR, Chronic Stroke Subjects to receive robotic gait training therapy. |
Primary outcome
Angle at Initial Contact
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Angle at initial contact averaged across each gait cycle for each subject at a given testing time point.
Swing Dorsiflexion
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Peak swing dorsiflexion averaged across each gait cycle for each subject at a given testing time point.
Number of Heel-First Foot Strikes
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Number of heel-first foot strikes for each subject at a given testing time point.
Gait Velocity
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Average gait velocity (meters/second) for each subject at a given testing time point.
12 secondary outcomes
Active range of motion for Dorsiflexion
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Ankle Muscle Strength
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Number of Participants Using Assistive Devices and Ankle Foot Orthoses
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Dynamic Gait Index
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Berg Balance Scale
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Stroke Impact Scale
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression)
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
NIH Stroke Scale
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Falls Efficacy Scale
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Fatigue Assessment Scale
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Modified Ashworth Scale
Time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Jan 2023.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41462280Roy A, Hennessie B, Hafer-Macko C, Forrester LW, Westlake K, Macko RF. Adaptive control ankle robotics training durably improves gait biomechanics in chronic hemiparetic stroke and footdrop. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2025 Dec 29;23(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12984-025-01834-2.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 38978605Roy A, Hennessie B, Hafer-Macko C, Westlake K, Macko R. Dorsiflexion Specific Ankle Robotics to Enhance Motor Learning After Stroke: A Preliminary Report. Res Sq [Preprint]. 2024 Jun 25:rs.3.rs-4390770. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4390770/v1.
Related trials for Foot Drop
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Muscle MRI Fat Fraction Before Surgery to Predict Strength Recovery After Foot-Drop Surgery in Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease
Foot Drop, Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease Type 1A
Recruiting
Combined Functional Electrical and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Foot Drop
Falls, Foot Drop
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Investigation of the Relationship Between Pes Planus and Piriformis Syndrome: A Case-Control Study
Piriformis Syndrome, Pes Planus
Recruiting
ENMS With Balance Feedback for Post-stroke Ankle-foot Rehabilitation
Cerebrovascular Stroke, Foot Drop
Recruiting
Characterization and Clinical Trial of a Variable Friction Shoe
Stroke
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Richard Macko, MD contact
Brad Hennessie, MHA, MBA study director
NextStep Robotics Inc.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing PTR Physical Therapy while wearing Robot group (Phase II), Physical Therapy Only (Phase II) and Cross over group for Physical Therapy n Sub-Acute group. (Phase II) in people with Foot Drop and Stroke, run by NextStep Robotics Inc. 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 3 inclusion and 5 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Jan 2023. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Josh Rudnicki (443-869-3518, JRudnicki@som.umaryland.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Angle at Initial Contact (time frame: Change from Baseline at both 9 Weeks and at 21 Weeks). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT04594837, which also lists 2 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 26 Jan 2023.