Study of Microprocessor-Controlled Prosthetic Knees to Improve Fall-Related Health and Mobility in Adults Using Above-Knee Prostheses
Led by Hanger Institute for Clinical Research and Education, LLC · Updated on 2026-02-05
100
Participants Needed
1
Research Sites
N/A
Total Duration
AI-Summary
What this Trial Is About
Researchers are evaluating whether microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees MPKs, which have built-in computers, improve health outcomes related to falls in adults who use above-knee prostheses. This study focuses on users classified as limited community ambulators Medicare Functional Level K2 and aims to find out if MPKs reduce fall-related health issues, increase mobility and walking speed, and enhance quality of life compared to non-microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees nMPKs.
The study is a 12-month randomized control trial where participants who recently received an nMPK are assigned to either continue using their nMPK or switch to an MPK. Those receiving the MPK will get either a stance-and-swing MPK Ottobock C-Leg 4 or a stance-only MPK Ottobock Kenevo, based on their walking speed measured by a 2-minute walk test. Participants will undergo education and training specific to their prosthetic knee and will wear the assigned knee for the full study duration.
Participants will be assessed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, with primary assessments at baseline and 12 months. Researchers will collect data on fall-related self-efficacy, anxiety, avoidance behaviors, interference, and the number of falls every two weeks. Mobility, walking speed, endurance, quality of life, and prosthesis wear and activity hours will also be measured. Fall and near-fall events, including injuries and treatments, will be closely monitored throughout the study.
CONDITIONS
Brief Title
Effects of Microprocessor-controlled Prosthetic Knees on Fall-related Health Outcomes in Limited Community Ambulators
Research Team
S
Shane R. Wurdeman, PhD
B
Bretta L. Fylstra, PhD
Not the Right Trial for You?
Explore thousands of other clinical trials that might be a better match. Sign up to get personalized trial recommendations delivered to your inbox.
Hanger Institute for Clinical Research and Education, LLC
Lead Sponsor
University of Washington
Collaborating Sponsor
How This Trial Compares With Other Options
This table compares participation in this trial with other options available for this condition. The information is drawn from published research and the trial’s study details and is provided for educational purposes only.
Factors
MPK (Ottobock C-Leg 4 or Kenevo)
nMPK (Mechanical Knee)
What it is
A prosthetic knee with embedded microprocessors adjusting knee resistance and safety features, provided as Ottobock C-Leg 4 (stance-and-swing) for faster walkers or Kenevo (stance-only) for slower walkers.
A conventional mechanical knee joint without microprocessor control, managed by spring, hydraulic, or mechanical systems.
Role in the trial
Randomized intervention arm receiving the MPK device during the trial period.
Randomized control arm continuing with an existing non-microprocessor prosthetic knee.
Primary use
To enhance mobility and reduce fall risk in limited community ambulators with above-knee amputation.
To enable safe ambulation using a mechanical knee joint for limited community walking.
How it is given or performed
Participants are fit with a microprocessor knee (C-Leg 4 or Kenevo) based on walking speed. The device replaces their previous knee and is used in daily life for up to 12 months.
Participants continue to use their own mechanical, non-microprocessor-controlled knee prosthesis as before.
Evidence status
Multiple trials and systematic reviews in limited community ambulators (K2) demonstrate improvements in safety, mobility, and reduced fall risk when using MPKs compared to nMPKs.
nMPKs remain a valid, established standard for safe, routine ambulation but may offer less advanced stability features, especially for reducing falls.
Important limitations
MPKs require a learning period, powered battery use, and may not suit all individuals' preferences or lifestyles. Not all K2 ambulators show large functional gains, and there are cost and maintenance considerations.
Lacks adaptive features; less able to prevent stumbles or falls on uneven ground. Some users report lower confidence and activity levels compared to MPK users.
Disclaimer: This comparison is created with the help of artificial intelligence(AI) and may contain errors or missing information. It is not medical advice and does not mean one option is better or safer than another. Clinical trials are still being studied, and joining a trial is your choice. Please consult your healthcare professional before making any decisions.
Who Can Participate
Age: 18Years +
All Genders
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if you...
Unilateral transfemoral or knee disarticulation limb loss
At least 6 months since limb loss
Current user of a prosthesis with a non-microprocessor-controlled knee
Received a replacement prosthesis with a non-microprocessor knee in the past 4 to 24 months
Classified as a limited community ambulator (Medicare Functional Level K2) by clinician
Meets at least one of these: Houghton Score 5-10; PLUS-M T-Score below 49.45 (if vascular/diabetes) or below 36.75 (otherwise); AMPPRO score 27-42 within last 24 months
Ability to read, write, and understand English
You will not qualify if you...
Any health condition preventing safe participation in trial activities
Weight of 275 pounds or more
Wearing prosthesis less than 3 days per week or less than 24 hours per week total
History of acute or chronic residual limb breakdown
Declining health with reduced activity over past 6 months
Your Study Journey
Screening
Duration - 2 to 4 weeks
Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial.
1 visit (in-person)
Enrollment and Baseline Assessment
Duration - Up to 1 day
Eligible participants are consented, randomized, and complete baseline assessments including performance tests and self-report surveys related to fall-related health and mobility.
1 baseline visit (in-person)
Device Implementation and Training
Duration - Between baseline and 1-month follow-up
Participants randomized to the intervention group receive a microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee (MPK) based on walking speed, while control group participants continue using their prescribed non-microprocessor knee (nMPK). All participants receive 1 to 4 training sessions to facilitate prosthesis use.
1 to 4 training sessions (in-person)
Treatment and Outcome Assessments
Duration - 12 months
Participants wear their assigned prosthetic knee and complete follow-up assessments of fall-related health outcomes and mobility at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after baseline, including standardized tests and self-report surveys.
5 follow-up visits (in-person) at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months
Ongoing Monitoring of Falls and Near-Fall Events
Duration - 12 months
Participants report the number of falls and near-fall events every two weeks throughout the 12-month participation period, including details on injury and prosthesis use during the event.
Biweekly check-ins (remote or in-person) every 2 weeks
How is the study designed?
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Masking
DOUBLE
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Model
PARALLEL
Primary Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Number of Arms
2
Similar Trials
Comparison of Myoelectric and Bionic Hands in Adults With Upper Limb Amputation
Assessing Hand Function, Body Image, and User Satisfaction
A New Surgical Method for Upper Limb Amputation to Improve Control and Sensation with Advanced Prosthetics
Testing Prosthetic Foot Designs to Improve Stability and Reduce Falls in Veterans With Below-Knee Amputations
Study of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy After Lower Leg Amputation to Improve Healing and Mobility
Surgical Revision of Lower Limb Amputations to Improve Muscle Control, Sensation, and Reverse Muscle Loss
Study of Neuropathic Pain and Quality of Life in Children and Teens After Limb Amputation
Study of Community Mobility Using Walking and Wheeled Devices in Adults With Lower Limb Amputation
Study of a New Above-Knee Prosthetic Leg to Reduce Mental Workload
in Adults With Lower Limb Amputation
Testing Autologous Palm or Sole Skin Cell Injections to Improve Skin Thickness and Strength at the Amputation Stump Site in Adults with Below the Knee Amputations
Comparing Walking Function Between C-Leg and Bio Leg Powered Prosthetic Knees in Adults with Above-Knee Amputation
Have more questions? Get in touch with our team for quick support
Published Research Related To This Trial
Comparison of nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference.
Jason T Kahle, M Jason Highsmith, Sandra L Hubbard
Functional assessment and satisfaction of transfemoral amputees with low mobility (FASTK2): A clinical trial of microprocessor-controlled vs. non-microprocessor-controlled knees.