Effects of Using the Electrodress Mollii on Spasticity

August 30, 2019 updated by: Susanne Palmcrantz, Danderyd Hospital

Effects of Using the Electrodress Mollii to Reduce Spasticity and Enhance Functioning After Stroke.

Spasticity is a common manifestation of lesions of central motor pathways, such as after stroke, traumatic brain or spinal cord injury and in cerebral palsy and is associated with increased impairments and disabilities. Spasticity may be associated with pain and contractures, caused by muscle weakness, reduced muscle length and volume that add to the disability.Treatments of spasticity comprise physical therapy, pharmacological agents and surgical treatment. Recently, a systematic review concluded that transcutaneous, electric nerve stimulation may have beneficial effects on spasticity and activity performance after stroke, which lends support to the new treatment method Mollii, which will be evaluated in this study.The Mollii suit provides electric stimulation through multiple electrodes places in a tight fitting suit. This study relates to the clinical trials performed at the University department of rehabilitation medicine at Danderyd Hospital in Stockholm and comprises an initial study of effects on spasticity ("Mechanical substudy") and a following, exploratory treatment trial ("Clinical substudy") in patients with spasticity after stroke.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Spasticity is a common manifestation of lesions of central motor pathways, such as after stroke, traumatic brain or spinal cord injury and in cerebral palsy and is associated with increased impairments and disabilities. Spasticity may be associated with pain and contractures, caused by muscle weakness, reduced muscle length and volume that add to the disability.Treatments of spasticity comprise physical therapy, pharmacological agents and surgical treatment. Recently, a systematic review concluded that transcutaneous, electric nerve stimulation may have beneficial effects on spasticity and activity performance after stroke, which lends support to the new treatment method Mollii, which will be evaluated in this study.The Mollii method has been developed by Inervetions, which is a small Swedish med-tech company, and represents an innovative approach for non-invasive electro-stimulation to reduce spasticity and improve motor function. The theoretical background of this treatment method primarily refers to the concept of reciprocal inhibition, i.e. that sensory input from a muscle may inhibit the activation of an antagonistic muscle. Thus, the application of Mollii aims at stimulating a muscle, e.g. the anterior tibial muscle of the lower leg in order to reduce reflex mediated over-activity, i.e. spasticity, in calf muscles by inducing reciprocal inhibition.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

21

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Stockholm
      • Danderyd, Stockholm, Sweden, SE18288
        • Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Danderyd Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

16 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

Eligible participants had

  • suffered a stroke > 12 months earlier
  • were living with hemiplegia affecting the right or the left side of the body including both upper and lower extremity function
  • were able to walk with assistance or independently according to the Functional Ambulatory Categories (Holden 1984) with a score of 2-5
  • activity in upper extremity was limited according to the Action Research Arm test (ARAT) (Nordin 2014) but could perform a grasp and grip movement
  • were > 17 years old, able to understand instructions as well as written and oral study information and could express informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

  • no detected neural component exceeding the cut off for spasticity according to the Neuroflexor (> 3. 4 Newton) in the wrist flexors
  • contractures not compatible with performing the Neurofexor test or walking
  • any other disorder with an impact on sensorimotor function
  • any other severe concomitant disease (such as cancer, cardiovascular, inflammatory or psychiatric disease), uncontrolled epilepsy or blood pressure, major surgery during the last year, any implanted medical devices
  • pregnancy
  • BMI>35

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Intervention in a Mechanism and a Clinical substudy

Mechanism substudy: 3 trial sessions ( electrodes set to 1) 20 Hz, 2) 30 Hz, 3) 0 Hz (placebo). Patients and datacollectors were blinded in terms of the randomised order of the treatment at each of the 3 trial sessions ( electrodes set to 1) 20 Hz, 2) 30 Hz, 3) 0 Hz (placebo).

Clinical substudy: Use of the fitted and individually set body suit, Mollii, in the home setting for 6 weeks

The Mollii method is provided in a tight fitting, whole body suit with multiple electrodes that can be set individually. The Mollii method uses low frequencies and low intensities that evokes sensory input but does not directly elicit muscle contractions. The theoretical background of this treatment method primarily refers to the concept of reciprocal inhibition, i.e. that sensory input from a muscle may inhibit the activation of an antagonistic muscle through the activation of the disynaptic reciprocal Ia inhibitory pathway.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Mechanism substudy and Clinical substudy: NeuroFlexor
Time Frame: Mechanism study: To assess change, NeuroFlexor data is recorded before, during and 10 minutes after treatment at each session. Clinical study: To assess change Neuroflexor data is collected before and after the 6 week intervention.
Measure related to spasticity: The Neuroflexor device comprises a portable computer-controlled step motor system with a lever arm that generates constant velocity movements of the wrist or ankle. The passive resistive force of the wrist or ankle is recorded by a force transducer. The force is then analyzed off-line and the total resistance is separated into mechanical and a neural components using a neuro-biomechanical computerized model. NeuroFlexor neural component reflecting stretch reflex mediated resistance, represents the main outcome. The NeuroFlexor hand (used in mechanism and clinical substudy) and foot module (used in mechansim substudy only) is a valid method that quantifies and distinguishes the genuine spasticity and the mechanical contributions (viscoelastic and soft tissue components) of the resistance opposing a passive stretch.
Mechanism study: To assess change, NeuroFlexor data is recorded before, during and 10 minutes after treatment at each session. Clinical study: To assess change Neuroflexor data is collected before and after the 6 week intervention.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Mechanism substudy: Surface electromyography
Time Frame: To assess change sEMG are assessed before and after 60 min of treatment at each session.
Measure related to spasticity: Surface electromyography (sEMG) signal of spastic muscles in the upper and lower limb (flexor carpi radialis, medial gastrocnemius and soleus muscles).
To assess change sEMG are assessed before and after 60 min of treatment at each session.
Mechanism substudy: Modified Ashworth scale:
Time Frame: Before and after 60 min of treatment at each session to assess change
Clinical assessment of spasticity on a 5 point scale ranging from 0= no spasticity to 5= rigidity
Before and after 60 min of treatment at each session to assess change
Mechanism substudy: Semi structured interview
Time Frame: During the 60 min of treatment at each session
To assess perceived effects of each intervention
During the 60 min of treatment at each session
Clinical substudy: the Fugl-Meyer scale
Time Frame: Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical assessment of motor sensory function of the upper (min 0 p and max 126p) and lower extremity (min 0 p and max 86p). Max point indicates no detected impairment.
Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical substudy: Modified Ashworth scale
Time Frame: Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical assessment of spasticity on a 5 point scale ranging from 0= no spasticity to 5= rigidity
Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical substudy: Barthel Index
Time Frame: Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Assessment of self-care and mobility (min 0 p and max 100p). Max point indicates independence
Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical substudy: Berg balance scale
Time Frame: Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical assessment of balance (max 56p). Max point indicate no limitations in balance.
Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical substudy: Montreal Cognitive Assessment
Time Frame: Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Assessment of cognitive function (min 0 p and max 30p). Max point indicate no impairment.
Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical substudy: Action Research Arm Test
Time Frame: Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical assessment of activity in upper extremity (max 57 p). Max point indicate no limitation.
Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical substudy: A digital hand dynamometer
Time Frame: Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical assessment of grip strength in kilograms.
Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical substudy: 10 meter walk test
Time Frame: Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical assessment of walking speed (m/s)
Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical substudy: 6 min walk test
Time Frame: Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical assessment of walking endurance (meters)
Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical substudy: Functional Ambulation Category
Time Frame: Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Assessment of indedence in walking (min 0 p and max 5p) Max point indicate independence
Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical substudy: Stroke Impact Scale
Time Frame: Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Self-perceived functioning and disability (min 0 p and max 100p/item). Max point indicate no perceived disability.
Before and after the 6 week intervention to assess change
Clinical substudy: Weekly semistructured telephone interview
Time Frame: Weekly during the 6 week intervention
To assess compliance, perceived effects and adverse events.
Weekly during the 6 week intervention

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Susanne Palmcrantz, PhD, Danderyd Hospital

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

August 15, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

February 1, 2019

Study Completion (Actual)

February 1, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

July 31, 2019

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 30, 2019

First Posted (Actual)

September 3, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

September 3, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 30, 2019

Last Verified

August 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Stroke

Clinical Trials on Mollii

3
Subscribe