Impaired Motor Function, Pain, Stroke
Conditions
Brief summary
This is a randomized controlled trial which will compare conventional mirror therapy with mirror therapy using the Miraπ device which physically moves a patient's affected limb. This study will use two parallel groups: (1) receiving conventional mirror therapy as a part of the standard of care as conducted by the participant's clinical care team and (2) receiving mirror therapy with the Miraπ device as conducted by study personnel with the oversight of the participant's clinical care team.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALMirror Therapy
Current standard of care using MT.
DEVICEMiraπ
This device has tiny sensors that measure the movement of the healthy fingers and tiny motors that move the affected fingers of the patient. The device is connected to a specially designed finger mechanism that moves the affected fingers of the patient. This opening mechanism is designed in a way that it prevents the fingers from being forced into any hurting position. If the patient moves the healthy fingers during training, also the fingers of the affected hand are moved by the device at the same time. This creates the effect of mirror therapy for the brain as the patient can see both hands moving.
Sponsors
Yale University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
Inpatients undergoing inpatient rehabilitation in the IRU (inpatient rehabilitation unit) at the Yale New Haven Hospital Rehabilitation and Wellness Center
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Participants currently accepted and cleared for rehabilitation in the inpatient rehabilitation unit by the rehabilitation medical director. * Participants with paralysis or motor function problems of only one hand. * Participants need mirror therapy because of their health condition. * Participants' rehabilitation physician determined that mirror therapy would be appropriate for standard of care. * Participants are able to memorize easy tasks, and able to follow instructions e.g., moving the healthy fingers.
Exclusion criteria
* Participants who are not cleared physically or medically to participate in standard acute inpatient rehabilitation therapies by the rehabilitation medical director * Participants who are not able to memorize easy tasks, e.g., moving the healthy fingers. * Participants with spasticity of the affected hand (as assed by the occupational therapist) * Minors * Vulnerable populations
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test score | At baseline and at discharge (approximately 2-3 weeks after baseline) | Percentage score, which determines how well a participant can do motor tasks for range of motion, strength, and tasks of activities of daily life. Participants have up to 120 seconds to complete tasks. Lower scores indicate less impairment. |
| McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) | At baseline and at discharge (approximately 2-3 weeks after baseline) | The MPQ is scored by summing the values of words that best describe a person's pain. The score ranges from 0 (no pain) to 78 (severe pain) |
| Change in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) to assess Pain | At baseline and at discharge (approximately 2-3 weeks after baseline) | The VAS pain scale is a tool for assessing pain intensity. Participants will be asked to mark a point on a 100 mm horizontal line that represents the intensity of their pain. This line has two endpoints: 0: No pain and 100: Worst possible pain imaginable. The distance from the 0 to the mark is measured in millimeters with the resulting number (0-100) being the VAS pain score |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed