Esta página se tradujo automáticamente y no se garantiza la precisión de la traducción. por favor refiérase a versión inglesa para un texto fuente.

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

23 de julio de 2026 actualizado por: 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.

Descripción general del estudio

Descripción detallada

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.

Tipo de estudio

Intervencionista

Inscripción (Estimado)

50

Fase

  • No aplica

Contactos y Ubicaciones

Esta sección proporciona los datos de contacto de quienes realizan el estudio e información sobre dónde se lleva a cabo este estudio.

Estudio Contacto

Ubicaciones de estudio

    • Punjab Province
      • Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistán, 54000
        • Reclutamiento
        • Jinnah Hospital
        • Contacto:
      • Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistán, 54000
        • Reclutamiento
        • Alfalah Medical Center
        • Contacto:

Criterios de participación

Los investigadores buscan personas que se ajusten a una determinada descripción, denominada criterio de elegibilidad. Algunos ejemplos de estos criterios son el estado de salud general de una persona o tratamientos previos.

Criterio de elegibilidad

Edades elegibles para estudiar

  • Adulto

Acepta Voluntarios Saludables

No

Descripción

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

Plan de estudios

Esta sección proporciona detalles del plan de estudio, incluido cómo está diseñado el estudio y qué mide el estudio.

¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?

Detalles de diseño

  • Propósito principal: Tratamiento
  • Asignación: Aleatorizado
  • Modelo Intervencionista: Asignación paralela
  • Enmascaramiento: Único

Armas e Intervenciones

Grupo de participantes/brazo
Intervención / Tratamiento
Comparador activo: 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.
Otros nombres:
  • 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.
Otros nombres:
  • KMT

¿Qué mide el estudio?

Medidas de resultado primarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Pain by Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)
Periodo de tiempo: 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)
Periodo de tiempo: 6 weeks
A goniometer is a standard clinical instrument used to measure joint range of motion (ROM)
6 weeks
Functional Disability
Periodo de tiempo: 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

Colaboradores e Investigadores

Aquí es donde encontrará personas y organizaciones involucradas en este estudio.

Investigadores

  • Investigador principal: Annum Manzoor, MS OMPT, Riphah International University

Publicaciones y enlaces útiles

La persona responsable de ingresar información sobre el estudio proporciona voluntariamente estas publicaciones. Estos pueden ser sobre cualquier cosa relacionada con el estudio.

Publicaciones Generales

Fechas de registro del estudio

Estas fechas rastrean el progreso del registro del estudio y los envíos de resultados resumidos a ClinicalTrials.gov. Los registros del estudio y los resultados informados son revisados ​​por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM) para asegurarse de que cumplan con los estándares de control de calidad específicos antes de publicarlos en el sitio web público.

Fechas importantes del estudio

Inicio del estudio (Actual)

1 de julio de 2026

Finalización primaria (Estimado)

1 de agosto de 2026

Finalización del estudio (Estimado)

1 de septiembre de 2026

Fechas de registro del estudio

Enviado por primera vez

21 de julio de 2026

Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

23 de julio de 2026

Publicado por primera vez (Actual)

24 de julio de 2026

Actualizaciones de registros de estudio

Última actualización publicada (Actual)

24 de julio de 2026

Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

23 de julio de 2026

Última verificación

1 de julio de 2026

Más información

Términos relacionados con este estudio

Plan de datos de participantes individuales (IPD)

¿Planea compartir datos de participantes individuales (IPD)?

NO

Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio

Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .

Suscribir