Heel Pain Syndrome Clinical Trial
— PopSole2Official title:
Validation of a Novel Foot Offloading Device
Verified date | January 2024 |
Source | University of Pittsburgh |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | |
Study type | Interventional |
Pressure offloading is often considered the most crucial aspect in healing after a foot injury. The investigators have devised a novel foot offloading device (PopSole™) which will allow for customization of the area where there is foot pain, as well as allow for customizable arch support and elevation of the metatarsals. This validation study is aimed to assess improvement of pain with use, ease of use, fit and feel, compliance, and durability over a 4 week period. Validated patient reported outcome measures will be used at baseline, 2 weeks and 4 weeks.
Status | Completed |
Enrollment | 20 |
Est. completion date | October 20, 2021 |
Est. primary completion date | October 20, 2021 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
Gender | All |
Age group | 18 Years and older |
Eligibility | Inclusion Criteria: 1. Aged 18 years or older and able to provide informed consent 2. Subjects with foot pain due to forefoot or heel fat pad atrophy or chronic plantar fasciitis as defined by heel pain for greater than 6 months and failed non-surgical therapy 3. Willing and able to comply with follow up examinations Exclusion Criteria: 1. Concurrent injury to the lower extremity that would effect gait 2. Open foot ulcerations, fractures, or diagnosis of osteomyelitis of the feet 3. Surgical foot intervention in the last 6 months 4. Diagnosis of pregnancy or the intent of the participant to become pregnant during participation in this study 5. Neuropathy 6. Any issue that per the physician's determination would render the patient not appropriate to continue participation in the study (compliance, change in physical status, etc.) |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
United States | UPMC Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Center | Pittsburgh | Pennsylvania |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
Jeffrey A. Gusenoff, MD |
United States,
Arts ML, de Haart M, Bus SA, Bakker JP, Hacking HG, Nollet F. Perceived usability and use of custom-made footwear in diabetic patients at high risk for foot ulceration. J Rehabil Med. 2014 Apr;46(4):357-62. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1272. — View Citation
Braun BJ, Veith NT, Rollmann M, Orth M, Fritz T, Herath SC, Holstein JH, Pohlemann T. Weight-bearing recommendations after operative fracture treatment-fact or fiction? Gait results with and feasibility of a dynamic, continuous pedobarography insole. Int Orthop. 2017 Aug;41(8):1507-1512. doi: 10.1007/s00264-017-3481-7. Epub 2017 Apr 19. — View Citation
Bus SA, Maas JC, Otterman NM. Lower-extremity dynamics of walking in neuropathic diabetic patients who wear a forefoot-offloading shoe. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2017 Dec;50:21-26. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.10.003. Epub 2017 Oct 2. — View Citation
Bus SA, van Deursen RW, Kanade RV, Wissink M, Manning EA, van Baal JG, Harding KG. Plantar pressure relief in the diabetic foot using forefoot offloading shoes. Gait Posture. 2009 Jun;29(4):618-22. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.01.003. Epub 2009 Feb 13. — View Citation
Bus SA. The Role of Pressure Offloading on Diabetic Foot Ulcer Healing and Prevention of Recurrence. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Sep;138(3 Suppl):179S-187S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002686. — View Citation
de Oliveira AL, Moore Z. Treatment of the diabetic foot by offloading: a systematic review. J Wound Care. 2015 Dec;24(12):560, 562-70. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2015.24.12.560. — View Citation
Farber SE, Minteer D, Gusenoff BR, Gusenoff JA. The Influence of Fat Grafting on Skin Quality in Cosmetic Foot Grafting: A Randomized, Cross-Over Clinical Trial. Aesthet Surg J. 2019 Mar 14;39(4):405-412. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjy168. — View Citation
Gusenoff JA, Mitchell RT, Jeong K, Wukich DK, Gusenoff BR. Autologous Fat Grafting for Pedal Fat Pad Atrophy: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Nov;138(5):1099-1108. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002667. — View Citation
Janisse DJ, Janisse E. Shoe modification and the use of orthoses in the treatment of foot and ankle pathology. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008 Mar;16(3):152-8. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200803000-00006. — View Citation
Jarl G, Tranberg R. An innovative sealed shoe to off-load and heal diabetic forefoot ulcers - a feasibility study. Diabet Foot Ankle. 2017 Jul 25;8(1):1348178. doi: 10.1080/2000625X.2017.1348178. eCollection 2017. — View Citation
Jarl G. Methodological considerations of investigating adherence to using offloading devices among people with diabetes. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018 Sep 12;12:1767-1775. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S175738. eCollection 2018. — View Citation
Lubarsky R, Gusenoff B, Gusenoff JA. Prospective Cohort Validation Study of a Novel Foot Offloading Device. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021 Nov 24;9(11):e3950. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003950. eCollection 2021 Nov. — View Citation
Minteer DM, Gusenoff BR, Gusenoff JA. Fat Grafting for Pedal Fat Pad Atrophy in a 2-Year, Prospective, Randomized, Crossover, Single-Center Clinical Trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Dec;142(6):862e-871e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005006. — View Citation
Myers KA, Long JT, Klein JP, Wertsch JJ, Janisse D, Harris GF. Biomechanical implications of the negative heel rocker sole shoe: gait kinematics and kinetics. Gait Posture. 2006 Nov;24(3):323-30. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.10.006. Epub 2005 Nov 21. — View Citation
Polat G, Karademir G, Akalan E, Asik M, Erdil M. Patient compliance with touchdown weight bearing after microfracture treatment of talar osteochondral lesions. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017 Mar 20;12(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s13018-017-0548-5. — View Citation
Robinson C, Major MJ, Kuffel C, Hines K, Cole P. Orthotic management of the neuropathic foot: an interdisciplinary care perspective. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2015 Feb;39(1):73-81. doi: 10.1177/0309364614545422. — View Citation
Swinnen E, Kerckhofs E. Compliance of patients wearing an orthotic device or orthopedic shoes: A systematic review. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015 Oct;19(4):759-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.06.008. Epub 2015 Jul 2. — View Citation
Waaijman R, Keukenkamp R, de Haart M, Polomski WP, Nollet F, Bus SA. Adherence to wearing prescription custom-made footwear in patients with diabetes at high risk for plantar foot ulceration. Diabetes Care. 2013 Jun;36(6):1613-8. doi: 10.2337/dc12-1330. Epub 2013 Jan 15. — View Citation
Wunnemann M, Klein D, Rosenbaum D. Effects of the Twin Shoe (Darco) to compensate height differences in normal gait. Gait Posture. 2011 Jan;33(1):61-5. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.09.025. Epub 2010 Oct 20. — View Citation
* Note: There are 19 references in all — Click here to view all references
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary | Change in Foot Pain From Screening/Baseline Visit to 4 Week Visit as Reported on the Pittsburgh Foot Survey. | Pain and function questionnaire measure. Scale for pain ranges from "Very severe" to "Had no pain". Scale for pain interference ranges from " Very much" to "not at all". Scale of functionality ranges from "unable to do" to "without any difficulty" in regards to a range of specified activities. Change is reported in mean foot reported pain score Screening/Baseline visit to 4 Week visit. Questions related to pain include items 1-5, total pain score possible is 25; higher scores indicate less pain reported. | Four Weeks | |
Primary | Change in Foot Pain From Screening/Baseline Visit to 4 Week Visit as Reported on the Manchester Foot and Ankle Index. | Pain and function questionnaire assessment. Three responses to a variety of pain and specified activities raging from "On most/every day(s)" which is scored as 2 to "none of the time" which is scored as 0. Summation is made on Functional (0-20 with 20 being the lowest functioning), Personal appearance (0-4 with 4 being the worst), pain (0-10 with 10 being the worst), work/leisure (0-100 with 100 being the worst impact on work/leisure).
Change in mean foot pain as reported on the Manchester Foot and Ankle Index from Screening/Baseline visit to 4 Week visit. Pain subscale is questions 13-17, range is 0-10 total points, lower scores indicate less pain. |
Four Weeks | |
Primary | Change in Foot Pain From Screening/Baseline Visit to 4 Week Visit as Reported on the Mayo Clinical Scoring System Questionnaire. | Pain and function questionnaire. Pain scale from 0 (worst) to 50 (no pain). Activity limitations, orthotic requirements, antalgic gait, neuropathy and plantar heel tenderness are all graded 10 (best) to 10 (worst). Overall summation is excellent (90-100), good (80-89), fair (70-79), poor (<70).
Change in mean foot pain score on Mayo Clinical Scoring System Questionnaire from Screening/Baseline Visit to 4 Week Visit. Pain scale is the first question, 50 total points, with higher scores meaning less pain. |
Four Weeks | |
Primary | Change in Foot Pain From Screening/Baseline Visit to 4 Week Visit as Reported on the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scale. | This survey assesses pain (40 points possible, comprises pain subtotal), function (50 points possible, comprises function subtotal; which includes activity limitations, maximum walking distance, difficulty with walking surfaces, gait abnormality, sagittal motion, hindfoot motion and ankle/hindfoot stability, and alignment (10 possible points, comprises alignment subtotal). A total score is calculated out of 100, with higher scores indicating greater impairment. There are also calculated subtotals specific to pain, function and alignment.
Change in mean foot pain score on AOFAS from Screening/Baseline Visit to 4 Week Visit. Pain scale is 40 total points, with higher scores meaning less pain. |
Four Weeks | |
Primary | Device Durability | Documentation of the number of participants who wore a single device for first 4 weeks of the participant's study participation. | Four weeks. | |
Primary | Participant Compliance With Device | Documentation of the number of participants who did not wear a single device for the full 4 weeks of the participant's study participation. | Four Weeks | |
Secondary | Participants' Reported Satisfaction and/or Difficulties With the Device | As measured by subject self report, using a device satisfaction measure questionnaire. Questions are answered yes/no in all cases except comfort (1-10 with 10 being the most comfortable), and ease of use (1-10 with 10 being most easy to use). | Four Weeks |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Completed |
NCT04060576 -
Post-needling Soreness After Internal Gastrocnemius Muscle Treatment
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT06074640 -
Effects of PIR With and Without Dry Needling on Heel Pain
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT04784598 -
Insoles Adapted in Flip-flop Sandals in People With Heel Pain
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT05885243 -
Evaluation of the Efficiency of ESWT and Custom İnsoles Produced With Podometric Measurement in the Treatment of Painful Heel Spurs (ESWT: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy)
|
N/A | |
Not yet recruiting |
NCT06456944 -
Effect of Selected Rehabilitation Program in Patients With Plantar Fasciitis
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT04380285 -
Treating Heel Pain in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Hard Versus Soft Orthotics
|
N/A | |
Not yet recruiting |
NCT05075434 -
Effects of the Diacutaneous Fibrolysis Approach in Patients With Plantar Fasciitis.
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT01355640 -
Two Methods of Analgesia for Chinese Term Infants Receiving Heel Lance
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT03482518 -
Effectiveness of Postural Insoles Adapted in Slippers for People With Persistent Heel Pain
|
N/A | |
Not yet recruiting |
NCT05810818 -
Effectiveness Of DN and STM Combined With Self-Stretching for Management of Calf and Heel Pain
|
N/A |