An interventional study of Low-frequency transcranial electrical stimulation; Paraspinous block; Dry needling of spastic upper limb muscles; Muscular functional electrical stimulation (FES) and SHAM Low-frequency transcranial electrical stimulation; Paraspinous block; Dry needling of spastic upper limb muscles; Muscular functional electrical stimulation (FES) in Post-stroke Upper Limb Spasticity, sponsored by University of Sao Paulo General Hospital. Completed at 1 site in Brazil. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-07-25.
Sponsored by University of Sao Paulo General Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The general objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the comprehensive protocol in improving post-stroke upper limb spasticity. The specific objectives were to evaluate pain improvement and changes in quality of life and functional capacity in patients who were subjected to the comprehensive protocol compared with those in the patients who underwent sham interventions.
Background: Managing post-stroke upper limb spasticity is a major challenge in the rehabilitation field. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a comprehensive treatment protocol with four therapeutic modalities in the recovery of patients with chronic stroke by evaluating clinical, neurological and functional outcomes.
Methodology: Thirty-two subjects diagnosed with a stroke at least six months prior to the study were randomized to receive ten sessions of either the treatment protocol or a sham intervention. The treatment protocol consisted of transcranial low-frequency electrical stimulation using subcutaneous needles over the scalp, paraspinous blocks, spastic muscle needling and functional electrical stimulation. Spasticity, range of motion, pain, functionality and quality of life were evaluated.
713 studies on the registry are indexed under Muscle Spasticity; 148 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 32 is below the median of 36 across 532 interventional studies indexed under Muscle Spasticity.
Browse Muscle Spasticity studies →University of Sao Paulo General Hospital is the lead sponsor of 608 studies on the registry; 97 are open to participants now.
Of its 8 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
The PG received the following combination of four therapeutic modalities twice a week for five weeks: 1. Low-frequency transcranial electrical stimulation; 2. Paraspinous block; 3. Dry needling of spastic upper limb muscles; 4. Muscular functional electrical stimulation (FES).
Procedure: Low-frequency transcranial electrical stimulation; Paraspinous block; Dry needling of spastic upper limb muscles; Muscular functional electrical stimulation (FES)
The Sham Group also received the four modalities of the intervention, but these modalities were all inactive. For simulation of transcranial electrical stimulation and FES, electrodes were placed on the scalp and in the upper extremity muscles and were connected to a device similar to the real electric current generator. This device did not transmit any electric current but had blinking lights and produced sound to provide the subjects visual and auditory feedback. To simulate dry needling and paraspinous block, retractile needles were used. The patients were blinded to their assigned treatment group.
Procedure: SHAM Low-frequency transcranial electrical stimulation; Paraspinous block; Dry needling of spastic upper limb muscles; Muscular functional electrical stimulation (FES)
1. Low-frequency transcranial electrical stimulation (2/100 Hz) applied through 0.3-mm-diameter and 40-mm-long needles placed subcutaneously on the scalp at the projection of Penfield's motor homunculus and sensory and frontal supplementary motor associative areas. 2. Paraspinous block at the levels of the C5, C6 and C7 vertebrae concordant with spasticity laterality. 3. Dry needling of spastic upper limb muscles, as identified through a thorough physical examination, using 0.3-mm-diameter and 40-mm-long needles. 4. Muscular functional electrical stimulation (FES) in the antagonists of the upper limb muscles with spasticity with the following parameters: 20-Hz frequency, 300-µs pulse width, zero-second ramp time, 5-second stimulation time, and 5-second resting time.
For simulation of transcranial electrical stimulation and FES, electrodes were placed on the scalp and in the upper extremity muscles and were connected to a device similar to the real electric current generator. This device did not transmit any electric current but had blinking lights and produced sound to provide the subjects visual and auditory feedback. To simulate dry needling and paraspinous block, retractile needles were used.
Modified Ashworth scale
To measure spasticity, and shoulder, elbow and wrist active and passive goniometry was performed to measure range of motion improvement. Minimum value = 0 (No increase in tone); Maximum value = 4 (Affected part in rigid flexion and extension)
Time frame: 3 months
Visual analogue scale (VAS)
To measure patients pain after the interventions. Minimun value = 0 (Painless); Maximum value = 10 (painful)
Time frame: 3 months
Functional independence measure (FIM)
To measure independence of patients after the interventions. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) is a functional assessment with 18 items in the areas of personal care, sphincter control, mobility, communication and social-cognition, through a broad questionnaire. Minimun value = 18 (total dependence); maximum value = 126 (total independence)
Time frame: 3 months
Quality of Life - SF-36 questionnaire
To measure patients' quality of life after the interventions for each domain. Minimum value (for each domain) = 0 (bad quality of life); Maximum value for each domain = 100 (good quality of life)
Time frame: 3 months
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.
University of Sao Paulo General Hospital →