Safety and Efficacy of Vibro-tactile Feedback for Patients Who Underwent Lower Limb Amputation
Overview
- Phase
- N/A
- Intervention
- Not specified
- Conditions
- Amputation of Lower Limb Below Knee
- Sponsor
- Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Traumatology - The research center in cooperation with AUVA
- Enrollment
- 18
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Affected leg stance time treatment-change difference
- Status
- Terminated
- Last Updated
- 2 years ago
Overview
Brief Summary
Prosthetics research has grown recently, focusing on bionic approaches that restore bodily functions with technical aids. One method involves using prostheses with feedback systems, which measure physical parameters and provide additional information to the user. Saphenus has developed a feedback system called Suralis© that transfers pressure signals from the prosthetic sole to another body region. This clinical investigation aimed to determine if this system improves gait stability and walking. The study analyzed changes in gait and functional balance and gathered patient-reported measures to evaluate the quality of life.
This research was open to individuals who have undergone below-knee amputation but no targeted re-innervation surgery and use prosthetics. Participants received the Suralis© feedback system, and the investigators assessed their walking activities. The system measures prosthetic foot sole pressure and converts it into digital signals, triggering vibration stimuli during the stance phase of walking. The investigators collected gait analyses and patient feedback to assess the impact of the feedback system on prosthetic management. The results will help us understand the benefits and effectiveness of this technology for people with amputation.
Detailed Description
The investigators conducted a prospective, unblinded crossover trial to compare the effectiveness of a vibration intervention with no intervention. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two sequences: vibration intervention followed by no intervention or vice versa. The intervention involved using the Suralis© vibrotactile ground-contact feedback system for 60 days. The system transmitted ground contact information to the residual lateral thigh, providing sensory feedback. During the control phase, participants received no additional intervention. The washout period lasted seven days. The study collected data during four visits, assessing gait and patient-reported measures. Bayesian generalized linear mixed models were used for data analysis, considering fixed effects (intervention, sequence, and period) and random effects (individuality).
Investigators
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- •male, female, and diverse individuals
- •unilateral transtibial amputation
- •at least 18 months post surgery
- •walking without aids possible
- •signed informed consent form
Exclusion Criteria
- •insufficient thigh sensation to distinguish between the two closest vibrotactile actuators
- •an acute event that restricts the walking ability
- •interfering lesions or painful conditions
- •undergone targeted re-innervation surgery
- •poor stump condition
- •used a non-modular prosthesis
- •used a prosthesis in poor condition
- •conditions preventing safe participation or interfering with study objectives
- •not able to not comply with the protocol
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Affected leg stance time treatment-change difference
Time Frame: Difference between the within-period changes of the 60-day control (C) and vibration (V) periods of the randomized controlled crossover trial, i.e., V(post - pre) - C(post - pre); three tries each assessment day
Stance time of the prosthetic leg during walking over level ground and on a 518 cm instrumented walkway at a self-selected speed
Secondary Outcomes
- Unaffected leg step length treatment-change difference(Difference between the within-period changes of the 60-day control (C) and vibration (V) periods of the randomized controlled crossover trial, i.e., V(post - pre) - C(post - pre); three tries each assessment day)
- Gait speed treatment-change difference(Difference between the within-period changes of the 60-day control (C) and vibration (V) periods of the randomized controlled crossover trial, i.e., V(post - pre) - C(post - pre); three tries each assessment day)
- Quality of life score treatment-change difference(Difference between the within-period changes of the 60-day control (C) and vibration (V) periods of the randomized controlled crossover trial, i.e., V(post - pre) - C(post - pre); once each assessment day)
- Adverse effects frequency treatment difference(Difference in the event frequency during the 60-day control (C) and vibration (V) periods of the randomized controlled crossover trial, i.e., V - C; once each assessment day)
- Timed up and go test time treatment-change difference(Difference between the within-period changes of the 60-day control (C) and vibration (V) periods of the randomized controlled crossover trial, i.e., V(post - pre) - C(post - pre); three tries each assessment day)
- 2 min walk test distance treatment-change difference(Difference between the within-period changes of the 60-day control (C) and vibration (V) periods of the randomized controlled crossover trial, i.e., V(post - pre) - C(post - pre); once each assessment day)
- Four square step test time treatment-change difference(Difference between the within-period changes of the 60-day control (C) and vibration (V) periods of the randomized controlled crossover trial, i.e., V(post - pre) - C(post - pre); three tries each assessment day)