CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01914991StaDinOrtUpdated May 6, 2014

Combined Static and Dynamic Orthotic Treatment of the PIP Joint

A Phase 4 interventional study of dynamic extension contracture orthotic and conventional treatment Physical Therapy in Health Behaviour, sponsored by University of Malaga. Completed at 1 site in Spain. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2014-05-06.

Sponsored by University of Malaga · Phase 4, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
62
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Study Design: Randomized controlled clinical study. Introduction: Physiotherapeutic intervention aiming to restore mobility using different techniques as stretching, hot packs, exercises, therapeutic ultrasound and orthotics. No scientific evidence has been found correlating improved joint mobility and the use of these techniques. Application techniques of orthoses to reshape the soft tissues have been well detailed, however, no scientific evidence supporting their effectiveness on proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) lag extension resolution using them as a single treatment has been found.

Purpose of the Study: The purpose of the study was to test the effectiveness of static and dynamic orthosis in patients with a PIPJ flexion retraction using them as a single treatment compared with traditional combined therapies.

Method: 63 participants were included in the study. Patients who used splints were compared to a control group who received conventional treatment. Active and passive mobility were measured before the experiment and again three months after. All the patients were measured under the same conditions and treated by the same hand therapist. The relationship between contracture resolution and function was measured using the DASH Spanish Version.

02

Conditions studied

  • Health Behaviour

Keywords

  • proximal interphalangeal joint
  • Orthoses
03

In context

Lead sponsor

University of Malaga is the lead sponsor of 119 studies on the registry; 34 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • 18 years old
  • had given their consent
  • having suffered trauma to the hand or finger which has resulted in joint damage with a consequent loss of full extension of the PIPJ
  • duration of the injury being between four and 30 weeks.

Exclusion criteria

EXCLUSION CRITERIA:

  • Patients who had no proper joint alignment,
  • Patients those with a presence of nerve or tendon associated dupuytren,
  • campodactilea
  • tubular bone fractures
  • acute inflammatory signs
  • joint instability
  • avascular necrosis
  • infection of the affected finger were not included in the study.
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 4
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
62 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Control group

    Conventional treatment: The treatment consisted of 10 minutes of local thermotherapy (paraffin), active exercises at the PIPJ and DIPJ (Distal interphalangeal joint), 3 sets of 15 repetitions of each exercise extending and flexing of the PIPJ with metacarpophalangeal joint from 0° to 90° respectively. Distal interphalangeal joint exercises were conducted with identical repetitions. The metacarpophalangeal joint and PIPJ exercises took place at 0 ° and involved stretching (5 sets of 3 reps, holding for 10 seconds) and Therapeutic U.S (0.8 w/cm2 / 7 minutes).

    Procedure: conventional treatment Physical Therapy

  • Experimental
    Experimental group

    dynamic extension contracture orthotic. A mobilizing force of 250 - 300 gm/cm2 was set in each one. Patients were instructed to wear it for at least 6 hours per day and then removed it for ADL (Activity Daily Living). A static orthosis was constructed using orfitcast material to the maximum, pain-free length allowed by the tissues at night. Static and dynamic orthoses were checked once a week and adjusted as necessary.

    Procedure: dynamic extension contracture orthotic

Interventions

  • Proceduredynamic extension contracture orthotic

    A dynamic orthosis was constructed in the experimental group using the same style of dynamic extension contracture orthotic. A mobilizing force of 250 - 300 gm/cm2 was set in each one. Patients were instructed to wear it for at least 6 hours per day and then removed it for ADL (Activity Daily Living). A static orthosis was constructed using orfitcast material to the maximum, pain-free length allowed by the tissues at night. Static and dynamic orthoses were checked once a week and adjusted as necessary.

    Also known as: ORTHOTIC

  • Procedureconventional treatment Physical Therapy

    Traditional treatment was applied to one control group. The treatment consisted of 10 minutes of local thermotherapy (paraffin), active exercises at the PIPJ and DIPJ (Distal interphalangeal joint), 3 sets of 15 repetitions of each exercise extending and flexing of the PIPJ with metacarpophalangeal joint from 0° to 90° respectively. Distal interphalangeal joint exercises were conducted with identical repetitions. The metacarpophalangeal joint and PIPJ exercises took place at 0 ° and involved stretching (5 sets of 3 reps, holding for 10 seconds) and Therapeutic U.S (0.8 w/cm2 / 7 minutes).

    Also known as: PHYSICAL THERAPY

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Active Range of motion AROM (degrees)

    AROM and function were measured in all patients at inclusion and at three months after the start of the study. which was measured using a short arm goniometer Stainless Baseline 180°. A lateral measurement following the standardized protocol recommended by the American Society of Hand Therapists was used.

    Time frame: baseline; post-treatment (3 moths)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Disability of the arm shoulder AND HAND (DASH QUESTIONNAIRE)

    The Spanish standard version of DASH instrument (Rosales et al. 2002) (www.dash.iwh.on.ca) for measuring upper extremity disability was used as a secondary outcome measurement. The questionnaire was given to the participants the day before starting the treatment and again after three months.

    Time frame: baseline; post-treatment (3 moths); 24 weeks follow up

  2. changes from postreatment Active range of Motion (AROM) degrees

    AROM and function were measured in all patients at inclusion and at three months after the start of the study. which was measured using a short arm goniometer Stainless Baseline 180°. A lateral measurement following the standardized protocol recommended by the American Society of Hand Therapists was used.

    Time frame: 24 weeks follow up

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Centro Tecan
    Malaga, 29009, Spain
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Cantero-Tellez R, Cuesta-Vargas AI, Cuadros-Romero M. Treatment of proximal interphalangeal joint flexion contracture: combined static and dynamic orthotic intervention compared with other therapy intervention: a randomized controlled trial. J Hand Surg Am. 2015 May;40(5):951-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.01.005. Epub 2015 Mar 11. PubMed 25771480 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 6, 2014, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01914991
Lead sponsor
University of Malaga
Responsible party
Dr. Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas (PhD, University of Malaga) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 2, 2013
Start date
Jun 2011
Primary completion
Sep 2011
Completion
Jan 2013
Last update
May 6, 2014

Study contacts

Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas, PhD
study director · University of Malaga

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in May 2014. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion