Diese Seite wurde automatisch übersetzt und die Genauigkeit der Übersetzung wird nicht garantiert. Bitte wende dich an die englische Version für einen Quelltext.

Spinal Mobilization With Arm Movement and Kaltenborn Mobilization in Adhesive Capsulitis (SMWAM)

23. Juli 2026 aktualisiert von: Riphah International University

Effects of Spinal Mobilization With Arm Movement and Kaltenborn Mobilization on Pain, Range of Motion, Functional Reaching, and Disability in Adhesive Capsulitis

To compare the effects of spinal mobilization with arm movement and Kaltenborn Mobilization on pain, range of motion, functional reaching, and disability in patients with Adhesive Capsulitis.

Studienübersicht

Detaillierte Beschreibung

A randomized clinical trial compared the effectiveness of Kaltenborn mobilization and muscle energy techniques in individuals with adhesive capsulitis. Seventy-six participants were randomly allocated into two treatment groups. Pain, shoulder range of motion, and disability were assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), goniometry, and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) at baseline and after four weeks of treatment. The findings demonstrated that Kaltenborn mobilization produced greater improvements in pain reduction, shoulder range of motion, and functional ability.

A quasi-experimental study evaluated the effects of Kaltenborn mobilization and muscle energy techniques in patients with chronic adhesive capsulitis. Participants received their respective manual therapy interventions in combination with conventional rehabilitation. Shoulder external rotation, shoulder abduction, pain intensity, and functional disability were assessed before and after treatment. The results indicated that Kaltenborn mobilization was more effective than muscle energy techniques in improving shoulder mobility, reducing pain, and enhancing functional outcomes.

A randomized controlled trial compared muscle energy techniques with Kaltenborn mobilization for improving shoulder range of motion in individuals with adhesive capsulitis. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and during follow-up using goniometric measurements. The findings showed that muscle energy techniques produced greater improvements in shoulder flexion and abduction, whereas rotational movements demonstrated no clear advantage over Kaltenborn mobilization.

A randomized clinical trial investigated the effects of Spinal Mobilization with Arm Movement (SMWAM) compared with the Maitland mobilization technique on shoulder function. Pain, shoulder range of motion, and muscle activity were evaluated before and after treatment. The results demonstrated that spinal mobilization with arm movement effectively reduced pain, normalized shoulder muscle activity, and increased shoulder range of motion.

A randomized controlled trial compared the effects of anterior and posterior Grade III Kaltenborn glides on shoulder function in patients with adhesive capsulitis. External rotation and functional ability were evaluated using goniometric measurements and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). The findings indicated that posterior gliding mobilization resulted in greater improvements in external rotation and shoulder function than anterior gliding.

A randomized controlled trial examined the immediate effects of Spinal Mobilization with Arm Movement (SMWAM) on shoulder performance. The intervention involved cervical spinal mobilization combined with repeated active arm abduction. The study reported immediate improvements in shoulder movement and suggested that SMWAM enhances shoulder function by correcting cervical spinal alignment and stimulating joint mechanoreceptors.

Although both Spinal Mobilization with Arm Movement (SMWAM) and Kaltenborn Mobilization have demonstrated beneficial effects in reducing pain and improving shoulder mobility, existing evidence has primarily evaluated these techniques independently or compared them with other manual therapy approaches. Direct comparative evidence between SMWAM and Kaltenborn Mobilization in individuals with adhesive capsulitis remains limited, particularly regarding their effects on pain, range of motion, functional reaching, and disability. Therefore, further comparative research is warranted to determine the more effective intervention for optimizing functional recovery in patients with adhesive capsulitis.

Studientyp

Interventionell

Einschreibung (Geschätzt)

50

Phase

  • Unzutreffend

Kontakte und Standorte

Dieser Abschnitt enthält die Kontaktdaten derjenigen, die die Studie durchführen, und Informationen darüber, wo diese Studie durchgeführt wird.

Studienkontakt

Studienorte

    • Punjab Province
      • Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistan, 54000
      • Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistan, 54000
        • Rekrutierung
        • Alfalah Medical Center
        • Kontakt:

Teilnahmekriterien

Forscher suchen nach Personen, die einer bestimmten Beschreibung entsprechen, die als Auswahlkriterien bezeichnet werden. Einige Beispiele für diese Kriterien sind der allgemeine Gesundheitszustand einer Person oder frühere Behandlungen.

Zulassungskriterien

Studienberechtigtes Alter

  • Erwachsene

Akzeptiert gesunde Freiwillige

Nein

Beschreibung

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age 35-50 years
  • Both male and female genders
  • Pain rating 3 to 7 on NPRS for at least 3 months
  • Idiopathic frozen shoulder
  • Stage II and III frozen shoulder
  • Positive Apley's Scratch test
  • Unilateral frozen shoulder
  • Frozen shoulder with at least 25% restricted ROM
  • Presence of global restriction in passive range of motion (PROM) in a capsular pattern (ER > ABD > IR)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Arthritic shoulder
  • Rotator cuff disease
  • Post-traumatic stiff shoulder
  • Post-CABG shoulder-hand syndrome
  • Post-stroke frozen shoulder
  • Bilateral frozen shoulder
  • Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
  • Any fracture or other injury
  • Any systemic illness
  • Any inflammatory disease (Rheumatoid arthritis, gout)
  • Any neurological disease
  • Frozen Shoulder secondary to Brachial Plexus Injury, Parkinsonism, Ankylosis, Infection, or Arthroplasty
  • Tendon calcification

Studienplan

Dieser Abschnitt enthält Einzelheiten zum Studienplan, einschließlich des Studiendesigns und der Messung der Studieninhalte.

Wie ist die Studie aufgebaut?

Designdetails

  • Hauptzweck: Behandlung
  • Zuteilung: Zufällig
  • Interventionsmodell: Parallele Zuordnung
  • Maskierung: Single

Waffen und Interventionen

Teilnehmergruppe / Arm
Intervention / Behandlung
Aktiver Komparator: Spinal Mobilization with Arm Movement
Participants will be seated upright while the therapist applies a sustained transverse glide to the C4 spinous process toward the side opposite the affected shoulder. The glide will be maintained as the participant actively abducts the affected arm to the pain-free or maximum tolerated range and returns to the starting position. The technique will be performed for 10 repetitions per session, ensuring controlled movement, proper posture, and patient comfort throughout the intervention.
Intervention: Spinal Mobilization with Arm Movement (SMWAM) Position: Participant seated upright with neutral spine and head posture Technique: Sustained transverse glide applied to the C4 spinous process toward the side opposite the affected shoulder during active shoulder abduction Movement: Active shoulder abduction to the pain-free or maximum tolerated range, followed by return to the starting position while maintaining the glide Dosage: 10 repetitions per session Purpose: To reduce pain, improve shoulder mobility, and enhance functional movement.
Andere Namen:
  • SMWAM
Experimental: Kaltenborn Mobilization
Following the application of a moist hot pack, participants will receive Kaltenborn Grade I glenohumeral traction followed by Grade III ventral glide and Grade III caudal glide in the same treatment session. Each mobilization will be performed for 15 repetitions, with a 30-second sustained hold and 10-second rest between repetitions, for a total treatment time of approximately 10 minutes. The techniques will be applied in standardized patient positions with appropriate scapular stabilization to improve glenohumeral joint mobility, reduce pain, and increase shoulder range of motion.
Intervention: Kaltenborn Mobilization Technique (KMT) Pre-treatment: Moist hot pack application Techniques: Grade I glenohumeral traction, Grade III ventral glide, and Grade III caudal glide Dosage: 15 repetitions of each technique with a 30-second hold and 10-second rest between repetitions Duration: Approximately 10 minutes per session Purpose: To improve glenohumeral joint mobility, reduce pain, and increase shoulder range of motion.
Andere Namen:
  • KMT

Was misst die Studie?

Primäre Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
Pain by Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)
Zeitfenster: 6 weeks
The Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) is an 11-point self-reported scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain) used to assess pain intensity in clinical and research settings.
6 weeks
Range of Motion (External Rotation, Abduction, Internal Rotation)
Zeitfenster: 6 weeks
A goniometer is a standard clinical instrument used to measure joint range of motion (ROM)
6 weeks
Functional Disability
Zeitfenster: 6 weeks
The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) is a 13-item self-administered questionnaire used to assess shoulder pain and functional disability.
6 weeks

Mitarbeiter und Ermittler

Hier finden Sie Personen und Organisationen, die an dieser Studie beteiligt sind.

Ermittler

  • Hauptermittler: Annum Manzoor, MS OMPT, Riphah International University

Publikationen und hilfreiche Links

Die Bereitstellung dieser Publikationen erfolgt freiwillig durch die für die Eingabe von Informationen über die Studie verantwortliche Person. Diese können sich auf alles beziehen, was mit dem Studium zu tun hat.

Allgemeine Veröffentlichungen

Studienaufzeichnungsdaten

Diese Daten verfolgen den Fortschritt der Übermittlung von Studienaufzeichnungen und zusammenfassenden Ergebnissen an ClinicalTrials.gov. Studienaufzeichnungen und gemeldete Ergebnisse werden von der National Library of Medicine (NLM) überprüft, um sicherzustellen, dass sie bestimmten Qualitätskontrollstandards entsprechen, bevor sie auf der öffentlichen Website veröffentlicht werden.

Haupttermine studieren

Studienbeginn (Tatsächlich)

1. Juli 2026

Primärer Abschluss (Geschätzt)

1. August 2026

Studienabschluss (Geschätzt)

1. September 2026

Studienanmeldedaten

Zuerst eingereicht

21. Juli 2026

Zuerst eingereicht, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt hat

23. Juli 2026

Zuerst gepostet (Tatsächlich)

24. Juli 2026

Studienaufzeichnungsaktualisierungen

Letztes Update gepostet (Tatsächlich)

24. Juli 2026

Letztes eingereichtes Update, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt

23. Juli 2026

Zuletzt verifiziert

1. Juli 2026

Mehr Informationen

Begriffe im Zusammenhang mit dieser Studie

Plan für individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD)

Planen Sie, individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD) zu teilen?

NEIN

Arzneimittel- und Geräteinformationen, Studienunterlagen

Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Arzneimittelprodukt

Nein

Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Geräteprodukt

Nein

Diese Informationen wurden ohne Änderungen direkt von der Website clinicaltrials.gov abgerufen. Wenn Sie Ihre Studiendaten ändern, entfernen oder aktualisieren möchten, wenden Sie sich bitte an register@clinicaltrials.gov. Sobald eine Änderung auf clinicaltrials.gov implementiert wird, wird diese automatisch auch auf unserer Website aktualisiert .

Klinische Studien zur Schulterschmerzen

Klinische Studien zur Spinal Mobilization with Arm Movement

Abonnieren