Adults 18 to 45, any sex, with Adult ALL or Healthy. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.
Results — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov
Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.
Ankle Joint StiffnessPrimary· In-vivo ankle joint stiffness was measured for each condition before and after short bouts of walking (~15-20 minutes).
Ground reaction force and ankle motion data were collected simultaneously using the force measurement and motion capture systems as participants wore no brace (NoCDO), a moderate stiffness orthosis (Compliant) and a stiff orthosis (Stiff) in a randomized order. The ankle motion data was plotted against the ankle moment data and the slope of the corresponding line was the resulting ankle joint stiffness (Nm/degree).
Group
Value
95% CI
NoCDO
0.62
± 0.32
Compliant
0.97
± 0.34
Stiff
0.98
± 0.34
Ankle Joint PowerPrimary· Ankle joint power was measured for each condition during short bouts of walking (~15-20 minutes).
Peak ankle joint push-off power (W/kg) was calculated during gait and normalized to participant body weight as participants wore no brace (NoCDO), a moderate stiffness orthosis (Compliant) and a stiff orthosis (Stiff) in a randomized order.
Group
Value
95% CI
NoCDO
2.8
± 0.5
Compliant
2.2
± 0.4
Stiff
2.1
± 0.3
Ankle Joint MomentPrimary· Ankle joint moment was measured for each condition during short bouts of walking (~15-20 minutes).
Peak ankle plantarflexion moment (Nm/kg) was calculated during gait and normalized to participant body weight as participants wore no brace (NoCDO), a moderate stiffness orthosis (Compliant) and a stiff orthosis (Stiff) in a randomized order.
Group
Value
95% CI
NoCDO
1.4
± 0.1
Compliant
1.3
± 0.1
Stiff
1.3
± 0.1
Numerical Pain Rating ScaleSecondary· Participants were asked to rate their pain after completing in-vivo ankle stiffness testing and walking trials in all conditions.
Participants were asked to rate their pain on a standard 11-point numerical pain rating scale, in which 0 = no pain and 10 = worst pain imaginable. Participants were asked to rate their pain after completing testing in no brace (NoCDO), a moderate stiffness orthosis (Compliant) and a stiff orthosis (Stiff) in a randomized order.
Group
Value
95% CI
NoCDO
0.1
± 0.2
Compliant
0.2
± 0.5
Stiff
0.2
± 0.5
Modified Socket Comfort Score: ComfortSecondary· Participants were asked to rate their comfort after completing in-vivo ankle stiffness testing and walking trials in Compliant and Stiff conditions.
Study participants were asked to rank the smoothness of each orthosis on a scale from 0-10 where 0 = least smooth and 10 = most smooth orthosis. Participants were asked to rate the comfort of each orthosis after completing testing in a moderate stiffness orthosis (Compliant) and a stiff orthosis (Stiff) in a randomized order.
Group
Value
95% CI
Compliant
7.5
± 1.7
Stiff
8.0
± 1.6
Modified Socket Comfort Score: SmoothnessSecondary· Participants were asked to rate the orthosis smoothness after completing in-vivo ankle stiffness testing and walking trials in Compliant and Stiff conditions.
Study participants were asked to rank the smoothness of each orthosis on a scale from 0-10 where 0 = least smooth and 10 = most smooth orthosis. Participants were asked to rate the smoothness of each orthosis after completing testing in a moderate stiffness orthosis (Compliant) and a stiff orthosis (Stiff) in a randomized order.
Group
Value
95% CI
Compliant
7.8
± 1.7
Stiff
7.7
± 2.0
Sponsor's own description
The primary purpose of this research study is to determine if the stiffness of a commercially available ankle foot orthosis (Malleo-Lok, Bio-Mechanical Composites, Des Moines IA) impacts gait biomechanics and overall joint level stiffness. Previously published research suggests that AFO stiffness can affect gait biomechanics and patient preference. However, previous studies have focused on traditional posterior strut devices with the strut aligned in the frontal plane to allow sagittal plane deflection. The Malleo-Lok is a novel, low-profile carbon fiber device with two laterally positioned struts aligned in the sagittal plane. The proposed study will provide insight that can be used by certified prosthetists orthotists (CPOs), physical therapists, and physicians to select the device that bests meets their patients' needs.
Publications & conference data
No peer-reviewed publications indexed yet for this trial. Completed trials usually publish results within 12-18 months.
NCT06386861 — Validating the Spanish "Attitudes Toward Genomics and Precision Medicine" (AGPM).
· NA
· active not recruiting
NCT06220487 — A Single-arm, Open-label Study of Olverembatinib, CD3/CD19 Bispecific T-cell Engager, and Chidamide in Patients With New
· Phase 2
· recruiting
Other University of Iowa trials
Trials by the same sponsor.
NCT07224269 — Effect of Terazosin on ATP Levels in People With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
· EARLY_PHASE1
· not yet recruiting
NCT07244809 — Probing the Role of Mitochondrial Oxidative Stress in Impaired Vascular Function Among Young Adults With Early Life Adve
· NA
· recruiting
NCT07097961 — Paediatric Post-TB Pulmonary Rehab Study
· NA
· recruiting
NCT06951594 — Robotic-Assisted Versus Manual Electrode Array Insertion
· NA
· recruiting
NCT06710119 — Effect of Custom Dynamic Orthoses on Forefoot Loading
· NA
· recruiting
Drug + disease cross-links: matched in real time against Drug Landscape's normalised drug + company + condition tables
Sponsor: as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov by University of Iowa
Last refreshed: 15 June 2023
Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT04806100.