Skip to content

Effect of Segmental Muscle Vibration on Upper Limb Function in Post Stroke Patients

Comparison Of Segmental Vibration On Flexors and Extensor Muscle Groups On Upper Limb Function In Post-Stroke Patients

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05356481
Enrollment
57
Registered
2022-05-02
Start date
2023-01-15
Completion date
2023-07-30
Last updated
2023-09-18

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Stroke

Keywords

segmental muscle vibration,spasticity,upper limb function

Brief summary

The aim of this study is to observe and to compare effects of segmental vibration on flexors versus extensor muscle groups on upper limb function in post-stroke patients. This study will be helpful in finding out that either low frequency segmental vibration on flexors muscle group is better in improving upper limb function or low frequency segmental vibration on extensor muscle group is more beneficent in improving upper limb function.

Detailed description

Stroke is the leading cause of long-term disability and is often associated with persistent involvement of upper limbs.Several disturbances are the manifestation of UL impairments after stroke (i.e., muscle weakness, changes in muscle tone, joint disturbances, impaired motor control) . Muscular weakness and spasticity are most commonly observed in post stroke patients. There are many strategies are developed to improve functional status and to reduce spasticity pattern in post stroke patients. Among the different approaches to improve motor functions in post stroke patients, vibration therapy gives strong stimulatory effects in post paretic limb. Segmental muscle vibration (SMV) is a fairly new technique that has been used to improve motor function and inhibit spasticity in the hemiplegic upper extremity of patients following a stroke. In SMV, a vibratory stimulus is applied to a specific muscle tendon using a mechanical device unit.The aim of this study is to observe and to compare effects of segmental vibration on flexors versus extensor muscle groups on upper limb function in post-stroke patients. This study will be helpful in finding out that either low frequency segmental vibration on flexors muscle group is better in improving upper limb function or low frequency segmental vibration on extensor muscle group is more beneficent in improving upper limb function.

Interventions

DEVICEsegmental muscle vibration

Segmental muscle vibration will delivered over the target muscles by means of vibrator with general physical therapy session

Sponsors

Riphah International University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Intervention model description

Assignment

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
50 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Both genders * Age: between 50-65 years. * Spasticity 1-3 on MAS * 3-6 months post stroke patients

Exclusion criteria

* Cardiovascular event (myocardial ischemia or infarction) occurring within 12 months, * Use of any antispastic drug * Pain from vibration * Inflammatory osteoarticular diseases

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Wolf Motor Functional Test10 to 15 minutesWMFT is valid and reliable on assessing upper extremities motor function of stroke patients. The WFMT is a tool with high interrater reliability, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and adequate stability.
Modified Ashworth Scale4 to 5 minutesThis scale measures resistance during passive soft-tissue stretching and is used as a simple measure of spasticity
Fugl Meyer Assessment10 minutesFugl Meyer Assessment
Manual Muscle Testing8 to 10 minutesto check muscle strength
• Brunnstrom Stages of Stroke Recovery • Brunnstrom Stages of Stroke Recovery Brunnstrom Stages of Stroke Recovery5 to 10 minutesto check the stages of improvemnet

Countries

Pakistan

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026