AmputationNCT06504303
Socket Geometry and Clinical Outcomes of Manual vs Digital Sockets for Lower-limb Amputees
A study testing 3D-printed socket in people with Amputation, run by West Park Healthcare Centre at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The most important aspect of a lower-limb prosthesis is the socket as the interface between the human and the mechanical prosthetic system. Proper fit of the socket to the residual limb is a critical factor in determining comfort, suspension, energy expenditure and ultimately the functional efficiency of the remaining… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Amputation
- What is being tested?
- 3D-printed socket
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 10 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 10 Nov 2021to 30 Nov 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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
- In-patient adults (18 years and older)
- Unilateral transtibial amputation
- Eligible to receive a preparatory prosthetic device
- Able to communicate in English orally and in writing
- Able to tolerate participating in an additional 30- minute 3D scanning session
Who cannot join
- Presentation of significant cognitive impairment
- History of epilepsy
- On dialysis at any point of the duration of the study
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Comparison of Socket Geometry and Clinical Outcomes Between Manually- and Digitally-designed Prosthetic Sockets for Lower-limb Amputees: a Feasibility Study
The most important aspect of a lower-limb prosthesis is the socket as the interface between the human and the mechanical prosthetic system. Proper fit of the socket to the residual limb is a critical factor in determining comfort, suspension, energy expenditure and ultimately the functional efficiency of the remaining prosthesis. Patients may not wear their prosthesis if they find the socket uncomfortable.
Traditional manufacturing of prosthetic sockets is a high-skill process involving several stages. Capturing the shape of the residual limb and modifying the mould is performed with a manual, hands-on approach. This leads to inconsistencies between clinicians, and increases the likelihood of human error. There is opportunity to improve this process with advanced computer-aided design (CAD) and manufacturing (CAM). 3D printing can be leveraged for its ability to effortlessly manufacture one-off, complex and organic shapes, such as prosthetic sockets. However, the digital method removes the tactile feedback that the clinician generally benefits from when manually designing the socket, thus leading to some uncertainty in how they are modifying the socket. Moreover, the difference in the learning curve may cause inconsistencies in modifications made by different clinicians.
Read more
While clinicians may be hesitant in their knowledge-transfer from a manual to digital method, sockets designed using CAD still produce successful outcomes. To facilitate wider-spread adoption of 3D printing as a standard tool in the clinic, more research is needed to better understand how the digital design process affects the geometry of the socket, and how this affects clinical outcomes for amputees.
The investigators hypothesize that (1) digitally-designed sockets and manually-designed sockets will have geometric differences, (2) the digitally-designed socket will result in better clinical outcomes compared to manually-designed sockets, and (3) improved clinical outcomes will correlate to geometric differences centred on particular regions of the socket. However, a feasibility study is needed to inform an effective protocol. This feasibility study aims to explore socket geometries and prosthetic outcomes compared between manually-designed and digitally-designed devices for lower-limb amputees. Findings will help in improving the current 3D printing techniques and exploring outcomes for the users.
Read the detailed description
This crossover case-control feasibility study aims to explore socket geometries and prosthetic outcomes compared between manually-designed and digitally-designed devices for lower-limb amputees. Feasibility and outcome measures will be measured at three major stages of routine prosthetic care, namely the socket fabrication, socket fitting, and functional testing.
Socket Fabrication:
Participants will be measured for the prosthetic device through (1) manual casting using Plaster of Paris bandages and (2) scanning using a 3D scanner (Artec Eva, Artec 3D, Luxembourg). The patient's residual limb soft tissue density will also be measured using a standard gauge (Fowler depth gage, Fowler Co., Inc., Massachusetts, USA) on certain landmarks: medial flare, distal end, lateral, popliteal region, distal tibia. The clinician will manually modify the positive plaster cast (herein, the M-socket) and digitally modify the scanned impression (herein, the AD-socket) using OMEGA software (OMEGA software, WillowWood Global LLC, Ohio, USA). The M-socket positive cast will be digitized by scanning the cast and exporting it to OMEGA. This scanned M-socket file and the CAD-socket file will each be 3D printed (Stratasys F370, Stratasys Ltd., Minnesota, USA) in nylon-based thermoplastic. Conventionally, the socket is manufactured by draping thermoplastic over a mold, but for this study, both sockets will be 3D printed. The two 3D-printed sockets will then be reinforced and connected to its corresponding component adapters using fiberglass and resin materials, as is done during current standard of care. To eliminate confounding, the same suspension and components will be used. Subjects will be given a patient experience survey to score their experience with each shape capturing process. The survey will be administered by a research assistant using a face-to-face interview technique before they are fit with the sockets.
Socket Fitting:
Both sockets will be fitted to the subject and immediate Socket Comfort Score will be recorded through an analogue visual scale, and will be recorded for every day that the patient wears each device. The immediate socket fit will be recorded by the number of filler sock plys needed to be added in the socket. Also, changes made to the sockets by the clinician (e.g., spot relieving) will be recorded. Subjects will continue therapy using the socket that is more comfortable and fits better, based on both the subject's judgment and the judgment of their clinician. If the subject finds both sockets as equally comfortable, he/she will get to choose the preferred socket to continue with for therapy. A healthcare provider will assist in the selection, should the patient request it. The subjects will be given 2 days to acclimate to the selected socket and will be retested for Socket Comfort Score once a day during the subject's therapy sessions, and tested for function one day before discharge (defined below).
Functional Testing:
One day before discharge from West Park, upon the completion of therapy, the participants will be tested for function through the L-test and 2-minute walk test (2MWT). This timeline is to ensure that the participant is safe to walk outside the parallel bars. The L test of functional mobility will be administered with the device. For patient safety, chairs will be placed in close proximity to the testing area, and subjects are allowed to walk with a mobility aid of their choice. One practice run will be allowed, followed by 2 trials with a 1-minute rest between trials. The mean times from the 2 trials will be used for data analysis. As a second measure of function, a 2-minute walk test (2MWT) will be administered after the L-test. To control for learning and practice effects, the subjects will be familiar with the test, or given 1 or more practice tests at least 1 day before testing. Subjects are allowed to walk with a mobility aid of their choice and allowed to rest during the 2-minute time.
The functional tests will be performed in the order described. The functional data will be collected by a member of the team other than the clinician that fits the patient in order to prevent bias in the results. Tests will be administered by a physiotherapist who is not involved in the study to ensure patient safety. To blind the device, the investigators will not disclose to the patient about the method the socket was designed when they first trial it. After the completion of the study, the participant will take the device home.
Clinical outcome measure data will be reported descriptively (mean, SD, minimum and maximum), and a statistical analysis plan detailing intended analyses will be drafted before the completion of data collection to inform a future study. The effect size will be calculated to help support sample size calculations for a future study. Feasibility data will be collected, and success of the feasibility analysis will be determined based on the following a priori criteria: recruitment rate ≥70% of all eligible potential participants; of the participants recruited, ≥70% adhered to the described protocol allowing for effective collection of quantitative and qualitative data appropriate for use in a definitive study; <20% dropped out of the study; SCS, L-test and 2MWT were identified as acceptable and appropriate outcome measures for the protocol; quantitative and qualitative data implied that digitally-designed sockets have different geometries to manually-designed sockets. Recruitment, adherence and drop-out rates will be calculated using the average obtained between the start of the study (once active recruitment starts) and the end of the study (once the desired sample size is reached). This study will decide that a larger study is not feasible if at least one of the criteria is not met.
- Conditions
- Amputation
- Being tested
- 3D-printed socket
- Keywords
- Transtibial amputation, Prosthesis, 3D printing, Additive manufacturing, Computer-aided design, Socket Comfort Score
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
3D-printed socketDevice
During the shape-capturing in-patient appointment, participants will be measured for the prosthetic device through (1) manual casting using Plaster of Paris bandages and (2) scanning using a 3D scanner. The clinician will manually modify the positive plaster cast and digitally modify the scanned impression using OMEGA software. The manually-modified positive cast will be digitized by scanning the cast, then 3D-printed. The digitally-modified socket file will also be 3D printed. The research investigator will make a de-identified mark on each socket to differentiate between the two sockets after 3D printing, and will record the order in which the sockets are fit to the patient.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 3D-printed socket | Experimental | The 3D scan of the participant's residual limb will be digitally-modified and fabricated using 3D printing. Receives: Device: 3D-printed socket |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patient recruitment rates
The number of eligible vs. recruited patients will be tracked throughout the study period.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Adherence to protocol
Adherence to protocol steps (i.e., casting, CAD, 3D printing, or functional testing protocols) will be tracked throughout the study period and a standardized checklist of procedures will be kept to measure the rate at which procedures are implemented as intended for fidelity assessment.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Patient retention rates
Patient drop-out rate will be tracked throughout the study period.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Secondary outcomes (4)
Socket geometric differences
The 3D geometries of the two sockets will be compared by superimposing the two files in CAD software and measuring the dimensional variances over the entire impressions. Global average difference, and local differences at anatomical areas where rectifications are made will be recorded. These include pressure sensitive areas of the patella, tibial tuberosity, distal tibia, fibular head, and medial and lateral femoral condyle; and pressure tolerant areas of the patellar tendon, medial and lateral flare of tibia, lateral flare of fibula, popliteal area, and distal end of stump. Any other major differences that are identified will be measured and their location recorded.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Socket comfort score change
A numeric scale to capture socket comfort by patients will also be used (0 = not at all comfortable; 10 = very comfortable).
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Two-minute walk test
Participants will be instructed to walk back and forth, as far as they can in 2 minutes without any further encouragement. One or more practice tests are allowed at least one day before testing. The test administrator will walk behind the subject to minimize the effect of pacing.
Measured: Performed one day prior to discharge from West Park.
L-test
Participants will be instructed to stand up from the chair, walk straight forward 7 meters, turn 90 degrees, walk 3 meters, turn 180 degrees and return to sit in the chair. A stopwatch will be used to record the time from the word 'go' to when the subject's buttocks first hits the seat surface when they return. The test administrator will use a digital stopwatch to time and a calibrated wheel with a counter to measure the distance walked. One practice run is allowed, followed by 2 trials with a 1-minute rest between trials. The mean times from the 2 trials will be used for data analysis.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Jul 2024
- Study start10 Nov 2021
- Primary completion30 Nov 2023
- Study completion30 Nov 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for AmputationStudies 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
- Other
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Model description
- Participants will be measured for a prosthetic device through (1) manual casting using Plaster of Paris bandages and (2) scanning using a 3D scanner. Subjects will be given a patient experience survey to score their experience with each shape capturing process. Two sockets, one made from each of the two shape-capturing methods, will be 3D printed. Both sockets will be fitted to the subject. The immediate socket fit will be recorded by the number of filler sock plys needed to be added in the socket. Subjects will continue therapy using the socket that is more comfortable and fits better, based on both the subject's judgment and the judgment of their clinician. If the subject finds both sockets as equally comfortable, he/she will get to choose the preferred socket to continue with for therapy.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 10 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- West Park Healthcare Centre
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Winfried Heim, MSc, C.P.(c), Principal investigator, West Park Healthcare Centre
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06504303
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 20-013-WP
- Status last verified
- Jul 2024
- First submitted
- 28 Jul 2021
- Last updated
- 16 Jul 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Jul 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Socket Geometry and Clinical Outcomes Between Manually- and Digitally-designed Prosthetic Sockets for Lower-limb Amputees: a Feasibility Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06504303
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 20-013-WP
- Conditions
- Amputation
- Keywords
- Transtibial amputation, Prosthesis, 3D printing, Additive manufacturing, Computer-aided design, Socket Comfort Score
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 10 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- West Park Healthcare CentreUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 10 Nov 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Nov 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Nov 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 16 Jul 2024 (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 most important aspect of a lower-limb prosthesis is the socket as the interface between the human and the mechanical prosthetic system. Proper fit of the socket to the residual limb is a critical factor in determining comfort, suspension, energy expenditure and ultimately the functional efficiency of the remaining prosthesis. Patients may not wear their prosthesis if they find the socket uncomfortable.
Traditional manufacturing of prosthetic sockets is a high-skill process involving several stages. Capturing the shape of the residual limb and modifying the mould is performed with a manual, hands-on approach. This leads to inconsistencies between clinicians, and increases the likelihood of human error. There is opportunity to improve this process with advanced computer-aided design (CAD) and manufacturing (CAM). 3D printing can be leveraged for its ability to effortlessly manufacture one-off, complex and organic shapes, such as prosthetic sockets. However, the digital method removes the tactile feedback that the clinician generally benefits from when manually designing the socket, thus leading to some uncertainty in how they are modifying the socket. Moreover, the difference in the learning curve may cause inconsistencies in modifications made by different clinicians.
While clinicians may be hesitant in their knowledge-transfer from a manual to digital method, sockets designed using CAD still produce successful outcomes. To facilitate wider-spread adoption of 3D printing as a standard tool in the clinic, more research is needed to better understand how the digital design process affects the geometry of the socket, and how this affects clinical outcomes for amputees.
The investigators hypothesize that (1) digitally-designed sockets and manually-designed sockets will have geometric differences, (2) the digitally-designed socket will result in better clinical outcomes compared to manually-designed sockets, and (3) improved clinical outcomes will correlate to geometric differences centred on particular regions of the socket. However, a feasibility study is needed to inform an effective protocol. This feasibility study aims to explore socket geometries and prosthetic outcomes compared between manually-designed and digitally-designed devices for lower-limb amputees. Findings will help in improving the current 3D printing techniques and exploring outcomes for the users.
Detailed description
This crossover case-control feasibility study aims to explore socket geometries and prosthetic outcomes compared between manually-designed and digitally-designed devices for lower-limb amputees. Feasibility and outcome measures will be measured at three major stages of routine prosthetic care, namely the socket fabrication, socket fitting, and functional testing.
Socket Fabrication:
Participants will be measured for the prosthetic device through (1) manual casting using Plaster of Paris bandages and (2) scanning using a 3D scanner (Artec Eva, Artec 3D, Luxembourg). The patient's residual limb soft tissue density will also be measured using a standard gauge (Fowler depth gage, Fowler Co., Inc., Massachusetts, USA) on certain landmarks: medial flare, distal end, lateral, popliteal region, distal tibia. The clinician will manually modify the positive plaster cast (herein, the M-socket) and digitally modify the scanned impression (herein, the AD-socket) using OMEGA software (OMEGA software, WillowWood Global LLC, Ohio, USA). The M-socket positive cast will be digitized by scanning the cast and exporting it to OMEGA. This scanned M-socket file and the CAD-socket file will each be 3D printed (Stratasys F370, Stratasys Ltd., Minnesota, USA) in nylon-based thermoplastic. Conventionally, the socket is manufactured by draping thermoplastic over a mold, but for this study, both sockets will be 3D printed. The two 3D-printed sockets will then be reinforced and connected to its corresponding component adapters using fiberglass and resin materials, as is done during current standard of care. To eliminate confounding, the same suspension and components will be used. Subjects will be given a patient experience survey to score their experience with each shape capturing process. The survey will be administered by a research assistant using a face-to-face interview technique before they are fit with the sockets.
Socket Fitting:
Both sockets will be fitted to the subject and immediate Socket Comfort Score will be recorded through an analogue visual scale, and will be recorded for every day that the patient wears each device. The immediate socket fit will be recorded by the number of filler sock plys needed to be added in the socket. Also, changes made to the sockets by the clinician (e.g., spot relieving) will be recorded. Subjects will continue therapy using the socket that is more comfortable and fits better, based on both the subject's judgment and the judgment of their clinician. If the subject finds both sockets as equally comfortable, he/she will get to choose the preferred socket to continue with for therapy. A healthcare provider will assist in the selection, should the patient request it. The subjects will be given 2 days to acclimate to the selected socket and will be retested for Socket Comfort Score once a day during the subject's therapy sessions, and tested for function one day before discharge (defined below).
Functional Testing:
One day before discharge from West Park, upon the completion of therapy, the participants will be tested for function through the L-test and 2-minute walk test (2MWT). This timeline is to ensure that the participant is safe to walk outside the parallel bars. The L test of functional mobility will be administered with the device. For patient safety, chairs will be placed in close proximity to the testing area, and subjects are allowed to walk with a mobility aid of their choice. One practice run will be allowed, followed by 2 trials with a 1-minute rest between trials. The mean times from the 2 trials will be used for data analysis. As a second measure of function, a 2-minute walk test (2MWT) will be administered after the L-test. To control for learning and practice effects, the subjects will be familiar with the test, or given 1 or more practice tests at least 1 day before testing. Subjects are allowed to walk with a mobility aid of their choice and allowed to rest during the 2-minute time.
The functional tests will be performed in the order described. The functional data will be collected by a member of the team other than the clinician that fits the patient in order to prevent bias in the results. Tests will be administered by a physiotherapist who is not involved in the study to ensure patient safety. To blind the device, the investigators will not disclose to the patient about the method the socket was designed when they first trial it. After the completion of the study, the participant will take the device home.
Clinical outcome measure data will be reported descriptively (mean, SD, minimum and maximum), and a statistical analysis plan detailing intended analyses will be drafted before the completion of data collection to inform a future study. The effect size will be calculated to help support sample size calculations for a future study. Feasibility data will be collected, and success of the feasibility analysis will be determined based on the following a priori criteria: recruitment rate ≥70% of all eligible potential participants; of the participants recruited, ≥70% adhered to the described protocol allowing for effective collection of quantitative and qualitative data appropriate for use in a definitive study; <20% dropped out of the study; SCS, L-test and 2MWT were identified as acceptable and appropriate outcome measures for the protocol; quantitative and qualitative data implied that digitally-designed sockets have different geometries to manually-designed sockets. Recruitment, adherence and drop-out rates will be calculated using the average obtained between the start of the study (once active recruitment starts) and the end of the study (once the desired sample size is reached). This study will decide that a larger study is not feasible if at least one of the criteria is not met.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- Participants will be measured for a prosthetic device through (1) manual casting using Plaster of Paris bandages and (2) scanning using a 3D scanner. Subjects will be given a patient experience survey to score their experience with each shape capturing process. Two sockets, one made from each of the two shape-capturing methods, will be 3D printed. Both sockets will be fitted to the subject. The immediate socket fit will be recorded by the number of filler sock plys needed to be added in the socket. Subjects will continue therapy using the socket that is more comfortable and fits better, based on both the subject's judgment and the judgment of their clinician. If the subject finds both sockets as equally comfortable, he/she will get to choose the preferred socket to continue with for therapy.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 3D-printed socket | Experimental | Device: 3D-printed socketThe 3D scan of the participant's residual limb will be digitally-modified and fabricated using 3D printing. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- In-patient adults (18 years and older)
- Unilateral transtibial amputation
- Eligible to receive a preparatory prosthetic device
- Able to communicate in English orally and in writing
- Able to tolerate participating in an additional 30- minute 3D scanning session
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Presentation of significant cognitive impairment
- History of epilepsy
- On dialysis at any point of the duration of the study
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 3D-printed socketDuring the shape-capturing in-patient appointment, participants will be measured for the prosthetic device through (1) manual casting using Plaster of Paris bandages and (2) scanning using a 3D scanner. The clinician will manually modify the positive plaster cast and digitally modify the scanned impression using OMEGA software. The manually-modified positive cast will be digitized by scanning the cast, then 3D-printed. The digitally-modified socket file will also be 3D printed. The research investigator will make a de-identified mark on each socket to differentiate between the two sockets after 3D printing, and will record the order in which the sockets are fit to the patient. | Device | 3D-printed socket |
Primary outcome
Patient recruitment rates
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
The number of eligible vs. recruited patients will be tracked throughout the study period.
Adherence to protocol
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Adherence to protocol steps (i.e., casting, CAD, 3D printing, or functional testing protocols) will be tracked throughout the study period and a standardized checklist of procedures will be kept to measure the rate at which procedures are implemented as intended for fidelity assessment.
Patient retention rates
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Patient drop-out rate will be tracked throughout the study period.
4 secondary outcomes
Socket geometric differences
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Socket comfort score change
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Two-minute walk test
Time frame: Performed one day prior to discharge from West Park.
L-test
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Jul 2024.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Amputation
RecruitingObservational study
Cryo NerVe Block Extremity AmputatioN RegIStry for Post Operative and pHantom Limb Pain
Amputation, Amputation of Lower Limb
RecruitingObservational study
CNS Changes Following Upper Limb Loss
Amputation, Congenital, Upper Limb; Amelia
Recruiting
Hand Prosthesis Usability and Performance
Amputation
Recruiting
E-Socket, Diagnostic Monitoring
Trans-Tibial Amputation
RecruitingObservational study
Early Postoperative Pain Following a Limb Amputation
Amputation, Surgical, Pain Management
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. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Winfried Heim, MSc, C.P.(c) principal investigator
West Park Healthcare Centre
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing 3D-printed socket in people with Amputation, run by West Park Healthcare Centre at 1 site in Canada.
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 5 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 16 Jul 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 Canada. 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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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?
Patient recruitment rates (time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 16 Jul 2024.