An interventional study of Split-Belt Treadmill Training and Tied-Belt Treadmill Training in Hip Fracture, sponsored by Israel Dudkiewicz. Completed at 1 site in Israel. Open to participants aged 65 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-06.
Sponsored by Israel Dudkiewicz · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Hip fracture surgery is often followed by difficulties in walking, including unequal step lengths between the two legs. This study investigated whether training on a treadmill with two independently moving belts could improve walking symmetry more than conventional treadmill training in older adults recovering from hip fracture surgery.
Twenty-four participants were randomly assigned to either split-belt treadmill training, in which the belt under the fractured leg moved more slowly, or conventional treadmill training, in which both belts moved at the same speed. Participants were scheduled to receive six training sessions over two weeks, in addition to their usual rehabilitation.
Walking symmetry and mobility were assessed at two time points before training, immediately after training, and four weeks later. Additional assessments included walking endurance, walking speed, confidence in maintaining balance, and self-reported physical function.
The study aimed to determine whether split-belt treadmill training could provide additional benefits for walking recovery after hip fracture.
Persistent gait asymmetry is a common consequence of hip fracture and may contribute to reduced walking efficiency, impaired mobility, and increased fall risk. Split-belt treadmill (SBTM) training uses independently controlled treadmill belts to modify the coordination between the lower limbs. By temporarily exaggerating existing step-length asymmetry (error augmentation), this approach aims to promote sensorimotor adaptation and improve walking symmetry.
This study was designed as an assessor-blinded, pilot randomized controlled trial conducted at Sheba Medical Center, Israel. Twenty-four older adults recovering from surgical repair of a hip fracture were randomly allocated to an experimental SBTM group or an active control group receiving conventional tied-belt treadmill training.
Both groups were scheduled to undergo six training sessions over two weeks, with three sessions per week. Each session included a two-minute acclimation period followed by four five-minute walking intervals, with seated rest periods as needed. In the experimental group, the treadmill belt under the fractured limb was set to move 50% more slowly than the belt under the intact limb. In the control group, both treadmill belts moved at the same individualized, comfortable walking speed. Both groups continued to receive standard inpatient rehabilitation according to individual clinical needs.
To account for spontaneous recovery following hip fracture surgery, participants underwent two baseline assessments approximately one week apart (BL1 and BL2). Additional evaluations were conducted immediately following the intervention and four weeks later.
The primary outcome was step-length gait asymmetry, assessed during overground walking using the GAITRite electronic walkway system. Secondary assessments included spatiotemporal gait parameters, walking endurance measured by the Two-Minute Walk Test (2MWT), and walking performance measured by the Ten-Meter Walk Test (10MWT). Patient-reported outcomes included the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC) and the Functional Component of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI-FC), administered at BL1, post-intervention, and follow-up.
The study examined the effects of the two treadmill training approaches on gait symmetry, functional mobility, and retention of training-related adaptations four weeks after the intervention.
842 studies on the registry are indexed under Hip Fractures; 165 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 24 is below the median of 86 across 533 interventional studies indexed under Hip Fractures.
Browse Hip Fractures studies →This is the only study on the registry with Israel Dudkiewicz as lead sponsor.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
The New York Heart Association’s four classes of how much heart failure limits physical activity.
Studies set their own limit — many outside heart failure leave out class III–IV, while heart failure studies may ask for a particular class. Check the class this study names.
Short tests of memory and thinking, each scored out of 30. Lower scores suggest more difficulty; criteria give a range, either to include people with memory problems or to leave them out.
NYHA class (heart failure)
The New York Heart Association’s four classes of how much heart failure limits physical activity.
Studies set their own limit — many outside heart failure leave out class III–IV, while heart failure studies may ask for a particular class. Check the class this study names.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
MMSE and MoCA
Short tests of memory and thinking, each scored out of 30. Lower scores suggest more difficulty; criteria give a range, either to include people with memory problems or to leave them out.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Split-Belt Treadmill Training (SBTM)
Behavioral: Split-Belt Treadmill Training
Tied-Belt Treadmill Training (TM)
Behavioral: Tied-Belt Treadmill Training
Participants were assigned to six split-belt treadmill training sessions over two weeks (three sessions per week). Each session included a two-minute acclimation period followed by four five-minute walking intervals, with seated rest periods as needed. During training, the treadmill belt under the fractured limb moved 50% more slowly than the belt under the intact limb to promote gait adaptation through error augmentation. Walking speed was individualized according to each participant's comfortable walking speed.
Participants were assigned to six conventional tied-belt treadmill training sessions over two weeks (three sessions per week). Each session included a two-minute acclimation period followed by four five-minute walking intervals, with seated rest periods as needed. Both treadmill belts moved at the same individualized, comfortable walking speed throughout the training intervals. The training schedule and duration were matched to those of the experimental group.
Change in Step-Length Gait Asymmetry
Step-length gait asymmetry was assessed during overground walking using the GAITRite electronic walkway. The signed asymmetry measure was calculated as the normalized difference between step lengths of the fractured and intact limbs, expressed as a percentage. A value of 0% indicates equal step lengths between limbs. Measurements from valid walking passes were averaged at each assessment.
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), Baseline 2 (immediately before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Change in Gait Velocity
Overground walking velocity measured using the GAITRite walkway, expressed in meters per second (m/s).
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), Baseline 2 (immediately before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Change in Cadence
Number of steps per minute during overground walking, measured using GAITRite.
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), Baseline 2 (immediately before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Change in Fractured-Limb Step Length
Mean step length of the fractured limb measured using GAITRite, expressed in centimeters.
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), Baseline 2 (immediately before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Change in Intact-Limb Step Length
Mean step length of the intact limb measured using GAITRite, expressed in centimeters.
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), Baseline 2 (immediately before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Change in Fractured-Limb Swing Phase Percentage
Percentage of the gait cycle spent in swing phase by the fractured limb, measured using GAITRite.
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), Baseline 2 (immediately before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Change in Intact-Limb Swing Phase Percentage
Percentage of the gait cycle spent in swing phase by the intact limb, measured using GAITRite.
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), Baseline 2 (immediately before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Change in Fractured-Limb Single-Limb Support Percentage
Percentage of the gait cycle during which body weight is supported by the fractured limb alone, assessed using GAITRite.
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), Baseline 2 (immediately before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Change in Intact-Limb Single-Limb Support Percentage
Percentage of the gait cycle during which body weight is supported by the intact limb alone, assessed using GAITRite.
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), Baseline 2 (immediately before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Change in Two-Minute Walk Test Distance
Total distance walked during the Two-Minute Walk Test (2MWT), expressed in meters. Higher values indicate greater walking endurance.
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), Baseline 2 (immediately before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Change in Ten-Meter Walk Test Completion Time
Time required to walk a 10-meter distance at a comfortable walking speed, expressed in seconds. Lower values indicate faster walking performance.
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), Baseline 2 (immediately before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Balance Confidence - ABC
Balance confidence was assessed using the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. Participants rated their confidence in performing 16 everyday activities without losing balance, on a scale from 0 (no confidence) to 100 (complete confidence). The total score is the mean of the 16 item scores, ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate greater balance confidence.
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Physical Function - LLFDI-FC
Self-reported physical function was assessed using the Functional Component of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI-FC). Participants rated the difficulty of performing 32 everyday physical activities. Scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating better physical function and less difficulty performing activities.
Time frame: Baseline 1 (1 week before training), post-intervention (approximately 2 weeks after training initiation), and 4 weeks after intervention completion.
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2026. 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.