CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT06720779Updated Dec 6, 2024

Virtual Rehabilitation Platform for Patients With Knee Prothesis

An interventional study of TRAK physio knee prosthesis protocol and Knee conventional rehabilitation program in Knee Arthropathy, sponsored by Trak Health Solutions S.L.. Recruiting at 1 site in Spain. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 85 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-12-06.

Sponsored by Trak Health Solutions S.L. · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Jun 2025, 1 year 4 months ago, but the record still lists the study as recruiting.
  • Registered 5 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Jun 2024, registered Nov 2024).
  • Started Jun 2024; still recruiting 2 years 4 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
20
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 85 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This clinical trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and usability of the Trak Rehabilitation Platform in patients who have undergone knee replacement surgery. Its main questions are whether the Trak platform combined with conventional therapy helps patients achieve optimal functionality with fewer in-person sessions compared to conventional rehabilitation alone and whether the Trak platform improves adherence to treatment, independence in daily activities, and quality of life while reducing resource consumption.

Researchers will compare the use of the Trak platform combined with conventional rehabilitation to standard rehabilitation practices to determine its impact on functional outcomes, patient and provider satisfaction, and resource efficiency.

Participants will:

  • Use the Trak Platform as part of their personalized treatment plan.
  • Attend face-to-face rehabilitation sessions as prescribed.
  • Participate in assessments to measure functionality, adherence, independence, quality of life, and resource utilization.
Read the detailed description

This randomized, controlled, single-center clinical trial conducted at Cruces University Hospital focuses on enhancing recovery outcomes by integrating telerehabilitation into conventional therapy.

The trial involves two parallel groups: an experimental group (EG) using the TRAK platform and conventional face-to-face rehabilitation and a control group (CG) undergoing the last methodology (conventional rehabilitation) alone. Participants in the EG will perform four weekly 30-minute at-home sessions on the TRAK platform, which utilizes artificial intelligence for real-time movement guidance, posture correction, and gamified motivation. Conventional therapy in both groups includes bi-weekly sessions of cryotherapy, joint mobilization, strength exercises, and gait re-education. This hybrid approach aims to personalize care, optimize functionality, and reduce the required face-to-face sessions.

Primary outcomes focus on reducing on-site rehabilitation sessions needed for functional recovery, while secondary outcomes assess adherence, independence, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Data will be collected through validated questionnaires, biomechanical tests, and metrics from the TRAK system during baseline and four follow-up visits at 2, 4, 6, and 12 weeks.

Healthcare professionals will receive training to ensure the effective use of the TRAK system. Ethical approval has been secured, and all participants will provide informed consent, ensuring compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and GDPR.

This study seeks to validate the TRAK platform's integration into clinical practice as a cost-effective and scalable solution to improve musculoskeletal rehabilitation outcomes. The findings will contribute to advancing digital health solutions in post-surgical recovery by exploring their usability and clinical impact.

02

Conditions studied

  • Knee Arthropathy

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • telerehabilitation
  • telemedicine
  • exercise prescription
  • exercise program
  • knee replacement
03

In context

Joint Diseases

712 studies on the registry are indexed under Joint Diseases; 127 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 20 is below the median of 60 across 470 interventional studies indexed under Joint Diseases.

Browse Joint Diseases studies →

Lead sponsor

Trak Health Solutions S.L. is the lead sponsor of 6 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 85 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients aged >18 and ≤85 years.
  • Patients who underwent surgery for the implantation of a knee prosthesis at the Knee Unit of the Cruces University Hospital.
  • Patients who require on-site rehabilitation at the Cruces university hospital rehabilitation service.
  • Patients who have signed the Informed Consent.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with intellectual disability or cognitive impairment.
  • Patients with a history of knee infection.
  • Patients who cannot make use of mobile applications, cell phones, tablets, laptops or e- mail and who do not have the support of a family member or caregiver to provide support to make use of these technologies.
  • Patients who have not signed the Informed Consent.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
20 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    TRAK treatment group

    Combined treatment of conventional rehabilitation plus virtual telerehabilitation treatment with the TRAK Platform.

    Other: TRAK physio knee prosthesis protocol · Other: Knee conventional rehabilitation program

  • Active comparator
    Knee control group

    Conventional face-to-face rehabilitation treatment.

    Other: Knee conventional rehabilitation program

Interventions

  • OtherTRAK physio knee prosthesis protocol

    The exercise protocol designed for knee conditions is carried out through TRAK, the digital rehabilitation tool.

  • OtherKnee conventional rehabilitation program

    Exercise protocol with the methodology of conventional clinical practice.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Number of face-to-face rehabilitation sessions required for each patient to reach the optimal level of function for discharge

    Sessions required to reach the next criteria: * Muscle balance = 4 in quadriceps and hamstrings according to the Medical Research Council (MRC). * Joint balance between 0-100 degrees of flexion, measured by goniometer * VAS scale \<4 * Stable gait

    Time frame: Visit 5 (week 12)

Secondary outcomes

  1. WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index)

    Life quality questionnaire. The results go from 0 to 98 being 0 the worst life quality and 98 the best.

    Time frame: visits 1 (Week 1) and 5 (Week 12) for both goups

  2. Knee flexion articular balance

    Knee flexion range of motion measured with a goniometer

    Time frame: Visits 1 (week 1) to 5 (week 12) for both groups

  3. TRAK platform knee flexion test

    Knee flexion measured by video on the TRAK platform

    Time frame: Visits 1 (week 1) to 5 (week 12) only on the intervention group

  4. MRC (Medical Research Council) scale

    Strength test for the cuadriceps muscle. The results go from Grade 5 (normal) to Grade 0 (no visible contraction).

    Time frame: Visits 1 (week 1) to 5 (week 12) for both groups

  5. 10 meter walk test

    Time and speed in 10 meter walk

    Time frame: visits 2 (Week 2) and 5 (Week 12) for both goups

  6. 6 minute walk test

    Distance covered on a 6 minute walk

    Time frame: visits 2 (Week 2) and 5 (Week 12) for both goups

  7. Up and go test

    the time, in seconds, it takes for an individual to get up from a standard chair, walk a distance of 3 meters, turn around, walk back to the chair and sit down again.

    Time frame: visits 2 (Week 2) and 5 (Week 12) for both goups

  8. Stable gait assessment Y/N

    Stable running or not depending on the professional's judgement

    Time frame: visits 2 (Week 2) and 5 (Week 12) for both goups

  9. VAS scale

    Scale used by the patient to measure pain from 1 to 10 being 1 no pain and 10 the highest pain posible

    Time frame: visits 1 (week 1) to 5 (week 2) for both goups

  10. Kujala Score or Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS) on the TRAK platform

    Self-administered patient questionnaire consisting of 13 questions related to specific activities, severity of pain and clinical symptoms. It assesses subjective reactions to particular activities and symptoms that are known to correlate with anterior knee pain syndrome. It is graded from 0 to 100, with 0 being the highest pain severity and 0 the lowest.

    Time frame: visits 1 (week 1) and 5 (week 12) for both goups

  11. Functional Knee Scale KOOS-PS (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score)

    is used to assess patient-relevant outcomes following a knee injury. The results range from zero representing extreme knee problems to 100 representing no knee problems.

    Time frame: visits 1 (week 1) to 5 (week 12) for both goups

  12. Patient satisfaction survey on the use of the TRAK Platform

    Questionnaire used on the TRAK platform to measure the patient satisfaction being 0 the worst satisfaction and 12 the best.

    Time frame: Visit 5 (week 12) on the intervention group

  13. EQ-5D-5L Questionnaire

    Quality of life measurement questionnaire that can be used both in relatively healthy individuals (general population) and in groups of patients with different pathologies. The restults range from 0 to 100, where 100 is the best possible health state and 0 the worst.

    Time frame: visits 1 (week 1) and 5 (week 12) for both goups

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Cruces University Hospital (HU Cruces, OSI EEC)
    Baracaldo, País Vasco 20018, Spain
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Garcia-Pont J, Blanch-Falp J, Coll-Colell R, Rosell-Abaurrea F, Tapiz-Reula A, Dorca-Badia E, Masabeu-Urrutia A, Martin-Urda A, Barrufet-Barque P, Force-Sanmartin L; Grupo de Estudio de la Infeccion de Protesis. [Prosthetic joint infection: a prospective study in five Catalonian hospitals]. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2006 Mar;24(3):157-61. doi: 10.1157/13086547. Spanish. PubMed 16606556 ↗
  • Ariza J, Euba G, Murillo O. [Orthopedic device-related infections]. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2008 Jun-Jul;26(6):380-90. doi: 10.1157/13123843. Spanish. PubMed 18588820 ↗
  • S. Castiella-Muruzábal, M.A. López-Vázquez, J. No-Sánchez, I. García-Fraga, J. Suárez-Guijarro, T. Bañales-MendozaArtroplastia de rodilla. Revisión. Rehabilitación (Madr), 41 (2007), pp. 290-308.
  • Lopez-Liria R, Vega-Ramirez F, Catalan-Matamoros D, Padilla Gongora D, Martinez-Cortes M, Mesa-Ruiz A. [Home care rehabilitation and physiotherapy in knee prosthesis]. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2012 Jan-Apr;35(1):99-113. doi: 10.4321/s1137-66272012000100009. Spanish. PubMed 22552131 ↗
  • Henderson KG, Wallis JA, Snowdon DA. Active physiotherapy interventions following total knee arthroplasty in the hospital and inpatient rehabilitation settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiotherapy. 2018 Mar;104(1):25-35. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2017.01.002. Epub 2017 Feb 1. PubMed 28802773 ↗
  • Hunter DJ, Lo GH. The management of osteoarthritis: an overview and call to appropriate conservative treatment. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2008 Aug;34(3):689-712. doi: 10.1016/j.rdc.2008.05.008. PubMed 18687278 ↗
  • Hao J, Pu Y, Chen Z, Siu KC. Effects of virtual reality-based telerehabilitation for stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2023 Mar;32(3):106960. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2022.106960. Epub 2022 Dec 29. PubMed 36586244 ↗
  • Batalik L, Filakova K, Sladeckova M, Dosbaba F, Su J, Pepera G. The cost-effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac telerehabilitation intervention: a systematic review. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2023 Apr;59(2):248-258. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.23.07773-0. Epub 2023 Jan 24. PubMed 36692413 ↗
  • Anton D, Berges I, Bermudez J, Goni A, Illarramendi A. A Telerehabilitation System for the Selection, Evaluation and Remote Management of Therapies. Sensors (Basel). 2018 May 8;18(5):1459. doi: 10.3390/s18051459. PubMed 29738442 ↗
  • Tsang MP, Man GCW, Xin H, Chong YC, Ong MT, Yung PS. The effectiveness of telerehabilitation in patients after total knee replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Telemed Telecare. 2024 Jun;30(5):795-808. doi: 10.1177/1357633X221097469. Epub 2022 May 12. PubMed 35549756 ↗
  • Prvu Bettger J, Green CL, Holmes DN, Chokshi A, Mather RC 3rd, Hoch BT, de Leon AJ, Aluisio F, Seyler TM, Del Gaizo DJ, Chiavetta J, Webb L, Miller V, Smith JM, Peterson ED. Effects of Virtual Exercise Rehabilitation In-Home Therapy Compared with Traditional Care After Total Knee Arthroplasty: VERITAS, a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Jan 15;102(2):101-109. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.00695. PubMed 31743238 ↗
  • Seron P, Oliveros MJ, Gutierrez-Arias R, Fuentes-Aspe R, Torres-Castro RC, Merino-Osorio C, Nahuelhual P, Inostroza J, Jalil Y, Solano R, Marzuca-Nassr GN, Aguilera-Eguia R, Lavados-Romo P, Soto-Rodriguez FJ, Sabelle C, Villarroel-Silva G, Gomolan P, Huaiquilaf S, Sanchez P. Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation in Physical Therapy: A Rapid Overview. Phys Ther. 2021 Jun 1;101(6):pzab053. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab053. PubMed 33561280 ↗
  • Azma K, RezaSoltani Z, Rezaeimoghaddam F, Dadarkhah A, Mohsenolhosseini S. Efficacy of tele-rehabilitation compared with office-based physical therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Sep;24(8):560-565. doi: 10.1177/1357633X17723368. Epub 2017 Aug 3. PubMed 28771070 ↗
  • Jiang S, Xiang J, Gao X, Guo K, Liu B. The comparison of telerehabilitation and face-to-face rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2018 May;24(4):257-262. doi: 10.1177/1357633X16686748. Epub 2016 Dec 27. PubMed 28027679 ↗
  • Telerehabilitation tool applied in patients with musculoskeletal pathology: a study of the benefit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fTzkUtg7R5apoxYZhSnFBb1SSTVZ e-xssOjCBcD9WKU/edit#heading=h.8sdbqdb9ue6x .
  • Masaracchio M, Hanney WJ, Liu X, Kolber M, Kirker K. Timing of rehabilitation on length of stay and cost in patients with hip or knee joint arthroplasty: A systematic review with meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017 Jun 2;12(6):e0178295. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178295. eCollection 2017. PubMed 28575058 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 6, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06720779
Lead sponsor
Trak Health Solutions S.L.
Collaborators
Biocruces Bizkaia Health Research Institute
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Dec 6, 2024
Start date
Jun 5, 2024
Primary completion
Jun 5, 2025 (estimated)
Completion
Jul 5, 2025 (estimated)
Last update
Dec 6, 2024

Study contacts

JUAN F DUARTE MENDOZA
Contact
juanfernando@trak.es
+34 677 33 4869
RAÚL ZABALLA FERNÁNDEZ
Contact
RAUL.ZABALLAFERNANDEZ@osakidetza.eus
+34 946 00 60 00
RAÚL ZABALLA FERNÁNDEZ
principal investigator · Cruces University Hospital (HU Cruces)

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion