Use of an Integrated Orthotic and Rehabilitation Initiative for Treatment of Lower Extremity Musculoskeletal Disorders
NCT ID: NCT05780502
Last Updated: 2025-03-12
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
RECRUITING
370 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2015-05-06
2028-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The Influence of Heel Wedge Properties on Roll-over of the Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis (IDEO)
NCT02509819
PRIORITI-MTF Study- Testing Patient Response to the IDEO
NCT02158884
From Opinion to Evidence: Multi-site Evaluation of Custom Dynamic Orthosis Best Practices
NCT06352788
The Safety of Reusing Walking Boot Components for Patients Recovering From Acute Foot and Ankle Injuries
NCT07287969
Identifying the Optimal Dynamic Ankle-Foot Orthosis Bending Stiffness for Individuals Post-Stroke
NCT06304519
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The natural history of severe lower extremity injury is disheartening. In the largest study of such injuries to date (the Lower Extremity Assessment Project, LEAP), all patients were found to be severely disabled at 2 and 7 years after injury13,14. This was regardless of treatment with amputation or limb salvage. In both groups, only 50% of patients had been able to return to work at 2 years. Additionally, functional outcomes were found to have worsened at 7 years after injury. There was no standardized rehabilitation program, and the use of orthotics was not standardized in this research. Although many factors were similar between the groups, one major difference was found in the cost of treatment. When the price of prosthetics were included in the analysis, the lifetime costs of amputation were three times greater than those of limb reconstruction15. Although the LEAP study group did not include active duty military patients (this was a specific exclusion criteria), we can reasonably assume that: (1) these are severely disabling injuries, (2) in the absence of standardized rehabilitation they do not improve with time, and (3) the costs of amputation are substantial when compared to limb salvage.
Although physical therapy is frequently recommended after musculoskeletal injury and treatment, standardized protocols are lackingl10,16. There is currently no "gold standard" rehabilitation program for patients who have sustained lower extremity injuries as a whole, or for specific injury patterns. Consequently, there is no accepted protocol against which to compare our current program in a randomized fashion.
Validated measures of functional assessment, as well as patient-based outcomes have been developed for this patient population. The Short Form 12 (SF-12), and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) have been extensively validated for use in musculoskeletal research17,18. The functional measures tested in this protocol have also been validated on a healthy, uninjured active duty population.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Passive Dynamic Brace
Patient receiving the Passive Dynamic Brace
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Fitted with a customized exoskeletal orthosis device
* Able to provide written informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
* Self-reported pregnancy
* Not fitted with a customized exoskeletal orthosis
* Unable or unwilling to provide written informed consent
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Joseph Hsu, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Carolinas HealthCare
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Carolinas Medical Center
Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Rachel B Seymour, PhD
Role: primary
Christine Churchill, MA
Role: backup
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
05-15-11E
Identifier Type: OTHER
Identifier Source: secondary_id
IRB00082255
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.