The Effect of Mirror Therapy on Upper Extremity Motor Function in Stroke Rehabilitation (MT)

November 18, 2024 updated by: Karthick Balasubramanian, University of Jazan

The study aimed to determine the effect of mirror therapy versus conventional physical therapy treatment in improving upper extremity impairments and motor function among chronic hemiplegic subjects.

Research Objectives:

  1. To discover the effectiveness of conventional physical therapy treatment on improving upper limb motor function among chronic hemiplegic subjects.
  2. To find out the effect of mirror therapy along with conventional physical therapy treatment on improving upper limb motor function among chronic hemiplegic subjects.
  3. To find out the effectiveness of mirror therapy combined with conventional physical therapy treatment versus conventional physical therapy treatment alone on improving upper extremity motor function among chronic hemiplegic subjects.

Study Overview

Status

Recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

38

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 Contact

Study Locations

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

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Duration of stroke more than six months
  • Subjects of chronic stroke with left or right hemiplegia.
  • Genders of male and female with age ranging between forty-five to sixty-five years.
  • MMSE scores greater than 23 out of 30.
  • Scored one or one plus on MAS on all muscles of the affected upper limb.
  • Have normal visual perception.
  • Able to follow oral commands.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Unable to follow visual and oral commands.
  • Unilateral neglect.
  • Cognitive impairments (MMSE scores less than 24 out of 30), or language deficits.
  • Any other neurological disorders and recent surgeries.
  • Previous exposure to MT.

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: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Control
The participants of control participants received conventional Physical Therapy (CPT) based on their routine physical therapy neurological evaluation. The CPT was individualized based on the needs of the subjects. It included: normalization of muscle tone, strengthening of weak muscles, lengthening of tight muscles, training for transfers like supine to sit, sit to stand, balance training, and gait training. The upper extremity training for ADLs also were incorporated using mobilization, reaching, grasping and dexterity movements
Other: Conventional Physical Therapy
The subjects of the control group received the CPT based on their routine physical therapy neurological evaluation. The CPT was individualized based on the needs of the subjects. It included: normalization of muscle tone, strengthening of weak muscles, lengthening of tight muscles, training for transfers like supine to sit, sit to stand, balance training, and gait training. The upper extremity training for ADLs also were incorporated using mobilization, reaching, grasping and dexterity movements
Experimental: Experimental

The experimental group received combination therapy that is MT combined with CPT treatment. The subjects were asked to be seated on a comfortable chair with feet and back supported and the upper extremity was on a tabletop surface of two-by-two- meter size.

A mirror was positioned in front of the subjects to shield the involved upper extremity, reflecting the image of the uninvolved side. The involved upper extremity was placed in a relaxed posture beside the mirror, mirroring the same posture on the uninvolved side to enhance illusional movements. The MT for the experimental group included reaching, grasping, and dexterity movements of the unaffected upper limb, followed by imitation on the involved side. Subjects performed five activities: finger flexion and extension, finger opposition, counting with fingers, wrist flexion and extension, and forearm supination and pronation. Each activity was done 10 times, with mirror therapy lasting 15 minutes and 30 minutes / 6 weeks.
Other: Mirror Therapy
A mirror was positioned in front of the subjects to shield the involved upper extremity, reflecting the image of the uninvolved side. The involved upper extremity was placed in a relaxed posture beside the mirror, mirroring the same posture on the uninvolved side to enhance illusional movements. The MT for the experimental group included reaching, grasping, and dexterity movements of the unaffected upper limb, followed by imitation on the involved side. Subjects performed five activities: finger flexion and extension, finger opposition, counting with fingers, wrist flexion and extension, and forearm supination and pronation. Each activity was done 10 times, with mirror therapy lasting 15 minutes followed by 30 minutes of CPT treatment. Each session lasted 45 minutes, held three times per week over six weeks.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE)
Time Frame: week 0 and week 6
The most widely applied method in post-stroke rehabilitation to estimate gross motor impairment is the FMA. It pursues the concept of stages of recovery for stroke patients, which developed with Twitchell and Brunnstrom. It gauges the capacity to manage isolated joints, which are impeded by synergy, and the strength of muscle, with an assumed order of difficulty. The components of the assessment are five including: joint range of motion (ROM), balance, sensory function, motion of the joint, and joint discomfort. FMA-UE is split into whole, proximal, and distal components and these subtests investigate the movement of body parts independently, with the authors recommending that every part of UE heal alone. It is used in the clinical field and in research to detect disease progress, prescribe exercise recovery, and prepare and evaluate medicine. FMA has as well demonstrated excellent inter- and intra-rater reliability, also the feasibility of construction.
week 0 and week 6
Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT)
Time Frame: week 0 and week 6
This examination tool was designed to estimate and evaluate the exercise capacity of individuals who suffer from mild to acute upper extremity motion impairments in laboratory and clinical settings. It is an improvement of a previous examination tool utilized in high-functioning patients, but difficult to perform in patients with minimal capacity of movement in the hands and fingers. WMFT has proven its significance in describing motion status in terms of severity and upper extremity motion impairments in a cohort of chronic individuals who suffer from stroke and traumatic brain injury in high-functioning individuals. The inter-test and inter-rater reliability, internal consistency of tests, and stability for schedule measures of performance and functional ability were high, varying from 0.88 to 0.98, with most estimates' relative from 0.95
week 0 and week 6

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Sponsor

University of Jazan

Collaborators

King Saud Medical City

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)

November 18, 2024

Primary Completion (Estimated)

July 30, 2025

Study Completion (Estimated)

July 30, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

November 18, 2024

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 18, 2024

First Posted (Estimated)

November 21, 2024

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimated)

November 21, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 18, 2024

Last Verified

November 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • MUREC-Apr.13/COM-2022/32-5

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

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.

Subscribe