An interventional study of eOPRA and OPRA in Amputation, Amputation, Traumatic and Amputation, Surgical, sponsored by Shirley Ryan AbilityLab. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 70 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-06-24.
Sponsored by Shirley Ryan AbilityLab · Not applicable, Interventional, and Device feasibility
The overall objective of this proposal is to perform a first-in-human home trial of the Electronic Osseoanchored Prostheses for the Rehabilitation of Amputees (e-OPRA) implant system in individuals with transhumeral amputations who have had Targeted Muscle Reinnervation (TMR) surgery and use a pattern recognition-controlled myoelectric prosthesis. The purpose of the study is to capture preliminary safety and effectiveness information on the e-OPRA device when used with the prosthetic systems. The investigators expect that the e-OPRA implant system will be safe and provide clinically and statistically significant improvements in control and comfort.
Specifically, the investigators hypothesize that the e-OPRA system will (1) allow for training of more functional prosthesis controllers, (2) provide more stable electromyographic (EMG) signals, reducing the need to recalibrate the prosthetic control system, and (3) be more comfortable, as it does not require a tethered arm-band to record surface EMG signals.
Phase 1: Perform TMR and e-OPRA surgeries in 8 persons with transhumeral amputations.
Phase 2: Perform a randomized cross-over study to compare the OPRA and e-OPRA system (without sensory feedback) in 8 transhumeral amputees who have received TMR.
Phase 3: Perform a randomized cross-over study to compare the e-OPRA system with and without sensory feedback in 8 transhumeral amputees who have received TMR.
In the past decade, progress has been made in creating stronger, more capable prosthetic devices, with improved control. Similar improvements have been made in prosthesis suspension, which is a critically important factor in both comfort and function of a prosthetic device. While skin-fit suction sockets were considered the state of the art for many years, custom-rolled silicon and instrumented gel-liners are now becoming more common, as they provide improved comfort. However, these approaches still require use of an external socket worn on the residual limb.
The Osseoanchored Prostheses for the Rehabilitation of Amputees (OPRA) implant system (Integrum AB, Mölndal, Sweden) uses osseointegration (OI) (i.e., a metal implant is placed in the residual bone, which then grows into and integrates with the implant) to provide mechanical attachment of the prosthesis to the skeleton in the residual limb, thus eliminating the need for a socket.
However, obtaining electromyographic (EMG) control signals to enable myoelectric control of a prosthesis, whether it is attached through OI or a conventional socket, requires placement of surface electrodes over residual limb muscles, which has many practical limitations. Surface EMG signals are a complex blend of all local muscle activations and as such have low fidelity. It is difficult to isolate EMG signals from large surface muscles, and it is impossible to separate out signals from small or deep muscles. In addition, surface EMG signals are contaminated by several sources of noise, including ambient electromagnetic interference, motion artifact, and even electrocardiogram signals.
The limitations of surface electrodes may be overcome by surgically implanting the electrodes into the residual limb and placing them directly onto/into the tissue of the target muscle so that the EMG can be recorded directly at the source with improved signal to noise ratio and without disturbances from the external environment. Typically, such an approach would require skin-penetrating leads to convey the EMG signals from the implanted electrodes to the outside of the body to enable myoelectric prosthesis control, making it unsuitable as a permanent solution.
However, in the e-OPRA (electronic OPRA) device, the percutaneous interface of the OPRA Implant is utilized as a conduit for the wired communication between the inside and the outside of the body, eliminating the need for permanent skin penetrating leads and enabling a permanent solution for myoelectric prosthesis control using implanted electrodes. The e-OPRA system (which is not yet commercially available) developed by Integrum AB (Mölndal, Sweden), is built on decades of developing the OPRA system (which is commercially available).
In addition to electrodes placed on muscle tissue, the e-OPRA device also contains implanted electrodes which are placed directly around peripheral nerves, which may be used for neurostimulation to generate sensory feedback to the user. The e-OPRA device constitutes the only available technology that provides a bidirectional neuromusculoskeletal interface in whichimplanted electrodes both record EMG signals and provide peripheral nerve stimulation for sensory feedback.
Use of the e-OPRA device with the well-documented neuro-electronic capabilities of EMG control systems provides an alternative to traditional socket prostheses by establishing a load-bearing coupling between the patient's skeleton and prosthesis, including wired connection between muscles and nerves in the residual limb and the prosthesis.
The investigators first propose to secure an investigational device exemption (IDE) from the FDA to implant an e-OPRA system. After implantation of the device and targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) surgery in eight subjects with transhumeral amputations, we propose two clinical trials to (i) compare comfort and function with implanted electrodes (e-OPRA) or surface electrodes (OPRA) and (ii) evaluate the effects of providing sensory feedback.
Exclusion Criteria:
OPRA implant with surface EMG and myoelectric prosthesis system.
Device: OPRA
eOPRA system with implanted EMG control and myoelectric prosthesis system.
Device: eOPRA
eOPRA implant system without sensory feedback and myoelectric prosthesis system.
Device: eOPRA without sensory feedback
eOPRA implant system with sensory feedback and myoelectric prosthesis system.
Device: eOPRA with sensory feedback
Electronic Osseoanchored Prostheses for the Rehabilitation of Amputees (e-OPRA) implant system for transhumeral amputees.
Also known as: OPRA
Osseoanchored Prostheses for the Rehabilitation of Amputees (e-OPRA) implant system in individuals with transhumeral amputations
Electronic Osseoanchored Prostheses for the Rehabilitation of Amputees (e-OPRA) implant system in individuals with transhumeral amputations with sensory feedback.
Osseoanchored Prostheses for the Rehabilitation of Amputees (e-OPRA) implant system in individuals with transhumeral amputations without sensory feedback.
Safety related: Adverse Event reporting
The number/percentage of subjects that successfully demonstrate the absence of any Serious Adverse Device Effects will be summarized along with a 95% confidence interval.
Time frame: Through study completion for each subject, on average 3 years.
Effectiveness related: EMG Signal to Noise Ratio Testing
The investigators will quantify the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of EMG signals by comparing activity recorded during maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) to that recorded during rest. SNR will be calculated as the ratio of EMG signal power during contraction to the signal power during rest, using a standardized protocol consistent with our preliminary data. Each trial will consist of three repetitions of three-second MVCs, interleaved with three-second rest periods. From each repetition, the central 30% of both the contraction and rest epochs will be extracted to minimize edge effects and ensure steady-state measurement. These extracted segments will then be concatenated across repetitions to create two signal arrays: one representing active EMG and the other representing baseline noise. This metric will be used to evaluate the quality of EMG signal acquisition from both surface and implanted electrodes, and to ensure adequate fidelity for pattern recognition control.
Time frame: Month 11, Month 13, Month 16, Month 19, Month 22
Effectiveness related: Somatosensory Mapping
The projected field-the region on the phantom limb where an electrically evoked sensation is perceived-for each contact on the implanted spiral nerve cuff electrodes. This mapping will be performed at three stimulation levels: the detection threshold (the lowest amplitude at which a sensation is first perceived) and two suprathreshold amplitudes that fall within a safe, physiologically relevant, and comfortably perceptible range. These amplitudes will allow us to assess the size, intensity, and location of the perceived sensation change with increased stimulation. Projected fields will be recorded on a schematic of the hand and used to build a subject-specific somatotopic map. This map will inform which sensor signals (from the TASKA CX hand) are routed to which nerve cuff contacts during the sensory feedback phases of the study. Contact-response stability will be evaluated over time, as these experiments will be repeated each time outcomes are collected in the study.
Time frame: Month 11, Month 13, Month 16, Month 19, Month 22
Effectiveness related: EMG Signal to Noise Ratio Testing
The investigators will quantify the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of EMG signals by comparing activity recorded during maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) to that recorded during rest. SNR will be calculated as the ratio of EMG signal power during contraction to the signal power during rest, using a standardized protocol consistent with our preliminary data. Each trial will consist of three repetitions of three-second MVCs, interleaved with three-second rest periods. From each repetition, the central 30% of both the contraction and rest epochs will be extracted to minimize edge effects and ensure steady-state measurement. These extracted segments will then be concatenated across repetitions to create two signal arrays: one representing active EMG and the other representing baseline noise. This metric will be used to evaluate the quality of EMG signal acquisition from both surface and implanted electrodes, and to ensure adequate fidelity for pattern recognition control.
Time frame: Month 13, Month 16, Month19, Month 22
Effectiveness related: Somatosensory Mapping
The projected field-the region on the phantom limb where an electrically evoked sensation is perceived-for each contact on the implanted spiral nerve cuff electrodes. This mapping will be performed at three stimulation levels: the detection threshold (the lowest amplitude at which a sensation is first perceived) and two suprathreshold amplitudes that fall within a safe, physiologically relevant, and comfortably perceptible range. These amplitudes will allow us to assess the size, intensity, and location of the perceived sensation change with increased stimulation. Projected fields will be recorded on a schematic of the hand and used to build a subject-specific somatotopic map. This map will inform which sensor signals (from the TASKA CX hand) are routed to which nerve cuff contacts during the sensory feedback phases of the study. Contact-response stability will be evaluated over time, as these experiments will be repeated each time outcomes are collected in the study.
Time frame: Month 13, Month 16, Month19, Month 22
Orthotics and Prosthetics User Survey-Upper Extremity Functional Status (OPUS-UEFS):
A 19-item, self-reported measure of an individual's ability to perform self-care and upper limb-based daily living tasks (e.g. button shirt, tie shoelaces) using a 5-point scale. Rasch analysis of the questionnaire ratings is used to calculate an overall measure of each subject's functional ability.
Time frame: Month 11, Month 13, Month 16, Month 19, Month 22
Jebsen Test of Hand Function
The Jebsen test includes seven subtests, including writing, turning over cards, picking up small objects, etc., in which the time taken to complete each subtask is recorded. The test has been validated for able-bodied subjects, but not for subjects with an amputation. The investigators have used this test previously for transhumeral and transradial amputees.
Time frame: Month 11, Month 13, Month 16, Month 19, Month 22
Clothespin Relocation Task
A test of prosthetic function that requires the user to move three clothespins from a vertical bar to a horizontal bar (thereby requiring use of the elbow, terminal device, and wrist rotator). This test has been in use by the Center for Bionic Medicine as a measure of prosthesis function for over a decade.
Time frame: Month 11, Month 13, Month 16, Month 19, Month 22
Modified Box and Block Test
This test involves counting the number of blocks a patient can move from one side of a box, over a barrier, to the other side of the box, usually in a 2-min test period. This test requires elbow and hand function.
Time frame: Month 11, Month 13, Month 16, Month 19, Month 22
Southhampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP)
The SHAP is a clinically validated, objective (self-timed) test of unilateral hand function that can be used to evaluate functionality of passive, mechanical, or myoelectric hands without bias to type-and changes in control ability over time. Abstract objects (some light, some heavy) and activities of daily living that are classified into one (or more) of six hand grips are timed by the subject. Scores are compared to a normalized, able-bodied control score of 100 allowing assessment of functional control of the terminal device compared to an intact hand Although this test has not been validated in prosthesis users, it was recommended for use while undergoing validation for this population.
Time frame: Month 11, Month 13, Month 16, Month 19, Month 22
Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control (ACMC)
The ACMC is an observational assessment tool that specifically measures the subject's ability to control a myoelectric hand and is the only validated test for subjects with an upper limb amputation. The ACMC uses a Rasch analysis of the subject's ability to control gripping, holding, releasing, and coordinating 30 items, and is scored on a four-point capability scale: 0, not capable; 1, sometimes capable; 2, capable on request; and 3, spontaneously capable. The prosthetic hand is used normally (i.e., in an active assist or passive support role). The test can detect small differences in ability to perform daily bimanual tasks and takes as little as 10-15 minutes to administer, although scoring takes significantly longer.
Time frame: Month 11, Month 13, Month 16, Month 19, Month 22
Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS):
A questionnaire that asks patients to list up to five tasks they have difficulty with and rate the difficulty on an 11-point numerical scale. Difficulty ratings can be averaged for each participant.
Time frame: Month 11, Month 13, Month 16, Month 19, Month 22
Plan to share: Undecided — Undecided due to pending IDE.
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Jun 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.
Shirley Ryan AbilityLab