CClinicalTrials.gg
Active, not recruitingNCT07521150MELO-REHABUpdated Jun 26, 2026

Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation in Melorheostosis: A Case Report

An interventional study of Assigned Interventions in Melorheostosis, sponsored by Yeditepe University. Active, not recruiting at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Open to female participants. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-06-26.

Sponsored by Yeditepe University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
1
Allocation
Not applicable
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of a structured physiotherapy and rehabilitation-based exercise program on clinical and functional parameters in a patient diagnosed with melorheostosis.

This study specifically aims to assess the effects of a structured physiotherapy and rehabilitation-based intervention program, including patient education and therapeutic exercise, on lower extremity functional parameters, muscle strength, balance, and quality of life in a patient with melorheostosis.

The main hypotheses:

H0: A structured physiotherapy and rehabilitation-based exercise program has no effect on improvement in clinical and functional evaluation parameters in a patient with melorheostosis.

H1: A structured physiotherapy and rehabilitation-based exercise program leads to improvement in clinical and functional evaluation parameters in a patient with melorheostosis.

Read the detailed description

Melorheostosis is a rare, chronic, and progressive sclerosing bone disorder characterized by cortical bone thickening, pain, joint stiffness, restricted mobility, and functional impairment. Due to its low prevalence, the available literature is limited, and conservative management strategies, particularly physiotherapy interventions, remain insufficiently defined.

A patient diagnosed with melorheostosis who meets the inclusion criteria and is followed by an orthopedic specialist will be included in this prospective single-case study to investigate the effectiveness of a structured physiotherapy and rehabilitation-based exercise program.

The patient, who is under regular physician supervision and willing to participate in the rehabilitation program, will be included in the study. The intervention approach will be based on a non-invasive, exercise-oriented physiotherapy program.

The rehabilitation program will consist of patient education, diaphragmatic breathing training, and a structured exercise program including strength, flexibility, and balance components. The patient will participate in a total of 24 physiotherapy sessions, three days per week, for eight weeks.

Before starting the treatment program, the patient's sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, and disease-related clinical features will be recorded using a structured evaluation form. A baseline clinical evaluation will be performed prior to the intervention.

Following the baseline assessment, the individualized physiotherapy program will be implemented. Exercise intensity and progression will be adjusted according to the patient's pain level and functional capacity throughout the intervention period.

Clinical and functional parameters will be evaluated before the treatment, immediately after the 8-week intervention, and at a 6-month follow-up to assess both short-term and long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the patient will continue routine medical treatment and remain under physician supervision, and no changes will be made to the existing medical management.

02

Conditions studied

  • Melorheostosis

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Physical Therapy
  • Rehabilitation
  • Sclerosing Bone Disease
  • Case Report
  • Exercise
03

In context

Motor Activity

2,426 studies on the registry are indexed under Motor Activity; 1,161 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 1 is below the median of 60 across 2,118 interventional studies indexed under Motor Activity.

Browse Motor Activity studies →

Lead sponsor

Yeditepe University is the lead sponsor of 127 studies on the registry; 31 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Diagnosed with melorheostosis by a physician.
  • Voluntarily agreeing to participate in the study and providing written informed consent.
  • Being under physician follow-up for the disease.
  • Being 18 years of age or older.
  • Having the cognitive level, communication skills, and physical capacity to perform the planned exercise program.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Presence of additional systemic, rheumatologic, or metabolic diseases that could affect bone metabolism, other than melorheostosis.
  • Presence of cardiovascular, pulmonary, or neurological disease at a level that may restrict exercising.
  • History of surgical intervention or severe trauma within the last six months.
  • Presence of psychiatric or cognitive disorders that could interfere with evaluation and exercise applications.
  • Failure to continue the 8-week exercise program.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
1 participant (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Structured Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Program Group (SPTR-G)

    The target population of the study consists of a 24-year-old female case diagnosed with melorheostosis by a relevant physician, who voluntarily meets the inclusion criteria. The study is designed as a single-case report and aims to evaluate the clinical and functional characteristics of the case. The participant is actively working as a physiotherapist in her professional life. Patient will receive patient education in addition to a structured exercise program. The exercise program will include progressive strengthening, flexibility, and balance-based exercises. Patient education will be delivered by targeting topics that encompass all components of the ICF framework. In addition, diaphragmatic breathing will be taught to patients prior to the exercise program.

    Other: Assigned Interventions

Interventions

  • OtherAssigned Interventions

    Patient will receive patient education in addition to a structured exercise program. The exercise program will include progressive strengthening, flexibility, and balance-based exercises. Patient education will be delivered by targeting topics that encompass all components of the ICF framework. In addition, diaphragmatic breathing will be taught to patients prior to the exercise program. The exercise program will be conducted three times per week for 8 weeks. Baseline assessments will be performed before the intervention, and post-intervention assessments will be repeated after completion of the program. Furthermore, evaluations will be conducted again during a 6-month follow-up period.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Pain Assessment

    The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to evaluate pain intensity. The location and severity of the pain will be questioned. The individual's resting, activity, and nighttime pain levels were evaluated on a 10 cm horizontal line with the extremes of "0: no pain" and "10: unbearable pain". Higher values indicate severe pain. In this study, it is planned to be used to evaluate the pain intensity of the case.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Post-intervention (Week 8), and Follow-up (Month 6)

Secondary outcomes

  1. SF-12 Quality of Life Scale

    The SF-12 is a self-reported questionnaire used to assess health-related quality of life. It evaluates both physical and mental health components, yielding two summary measures: the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS). Scores range from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate a better level of health and a higher quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Week 8, and Month 6.

  2. Passive Knee Extension (PKE) Test

    The PKE test is used to assess hamstring muscle flexibility. The participant is positioned supine, with the non-tested limb stabilized and the tested hip fixed at 90 degrees of flexion. As the knee is extended, the angle between the tibia and the vertical vector is measured using an inclinometer placed 15 cm distal to the tibial tuberosity. The measurement is recorded in degrees (°). A smaller angle relative to the vertical line indicates greater knee extension and better hamstring flexibility.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Week 8, and Month 6.

  3. Ankle Active Range of Motion

    Ankle AROM (dorsiflexion, plantarflexion, inversion, and eversion) is evaluated using a goniometer in standard anatomical positions. For dorsiflexion and plantarflexion, the participant is seated with knees slightly flexed; the axis of the goniometer is placed over the lateral malleolus, the stationary arm parallel to the fibular line, and the moving arm parallel to the lateral aspect of the 5th metatarsal. For inversion and eversion, the participant sits with legs hanging off the edge of the table; the axis is placed at the midpoint between the two malleoli, the stationary arm on the anterior surface of the tibia, and the moving arm parallel to the longitudinal axis of the 2nd metatarsal. All measurements are recorded in degrees (°), with higher values indicating a greater active range of motion.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Week 8, and Month 6.

  4. Quadriceps Flexibility / Ely's Test

    The Ely's test is used to assess the flexibility of the rectus femoris muscle. With the participant in a prone position and the pelvis stabilized, the examiner passively flexes the knee to its maximal limit just before compensatory pelvic flexion occurs. The maximum knee flexion angle is measured using a goniometer and recorded in degrees (°). A higher degree of knee flexion indicates greater quadriceps flexibility.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Week 8, and Month 6.

  5. Gastrocnemius-Soleus Muscle Flexibility Tests

    Flexibility of the calf muscles is assessed by measuring ankle dorsiflexion range of motion using a goniometer in standing positions. For the gastrocnemius, the participant stands facing a wall, keeps the tested knee fully extended, and shifts weight forward. For the soleus, the participant assumes a weight-bearing lunge position with the tested knee flexed, keeping both heels firmly on the floor. Measurements are recorded in degrees (°), with higher values representing greater muscle flexibility.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Week 8, and Month 6.

  6. Weight-Bearing Lunge Test - WBLT

    The WBLT evaluates closed kinetic chain ankle dorsiflexion under a loaded, functional condition. The participant performs a maximal forward lunge toward a wall, maintaining heel contact with the floor. The angle between the tibia and the vertical axis is measured using a digital inclinometer placed 15 cm distal to the tibial tuberosity. The measurement is recorded in degrees (°). Higher angle values indicate greater dorsiflexion mobility.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Week 8, and Month 6.

  7. Quadriceps Muscle Strength Measurement

    Quadriceps strength is evaluated using a digital handheld myometer (dynamometer). The participant is seated with legs hanging from the edge of the table, with both hip and knee positioned at 90 degrees of flexion. The myometer is placed on the anterior surface of the tibia, approximately 5 cm proximal to the lateral malleolus. The participant performs a maximal isometric knee extension for 5 seconds. The peak force is recorded. Higher values indicate greater quadriceps muscle strength.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Week 8, and Month 6.

  8. Hamstring Muscle Strength Measurement

    Hamstring strength is evaluated using a digital handheld myometer (dynamometer). The participant is in a prone position, and the tested knee is passively brought to an angle of 30° to 45° of flexion. The myometer is placed on the posterior surface of the tibia, just proximal to the heel (calcaneus). The peak force is recorded. Higher values indicate greater hamstring muscle strength.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Week 8, and Month 6.

  9. Hip External Rotator Muscle Strength Measurement

    Hip external rotator strength is evaluated using a digital handheld myometer. The participant is assessed in a side-lying position with the knees flexed at 90 degrees. The myometer is placed on the medial aspect of the leg, just proximal to the medial malleolus of the tested limb. The peak force is recorded. Higher values indicate greater hip external rotator muscle strength.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Week 8, and Month 6.

  10. Y-Balance Test

    The Y-Balance Test evaluates dynamic balance. The participant stands on one leg and reaches as far as possible with the contralateral leg in three directions: anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral. To standardize the measurements, the reach distances are normalized to the participant's lower limb length, measured from the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) to the medial malleolus. Higher normalized composite scores indicate better dynamic balance and stability.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Week 8, and Month 6.

  11. Feiss Line Test

    The Feiss Line Test evaluates the height of the medial longitudinal arch and static foot posture. While the participant is seated (non-weight bearing) and then standing, the medial malleolus, navicular tubercle, and the center of the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint are marked. An imaginary line (Feiss Line) is drawn between the medial malleolus and the first MTP joint. The position of the navicular tubercle relative to this line is examined to grade the arch height.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Week 8, and Month 6.

  12. Navicular Drop Test

    The Navicular Drop Test assesses excessive foot pronation and the dynamic stability of the medial longitudinal arch under load. With the participant seated (non-weight bearing) and the subtalar joint in a neutral position, the height of the navicular tubercle from the floor is measured in millimeters. The participant then stands with weight distributed evenly on both feet (weight-bearing position), and the measurement is repeated. The difference between the two measurements is recorded as the navicular drop (in mm). A higher drop value indicates greater dynamic foot pronation and reduced arch stability.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0), Week 8, and Month 6.

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Yeditepe University
    Istanbul, 34755, Turkey (Türkiye)
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Shultz SJ, Nguyen AD, Windley TC, Kulas AS, Botic TL, Beynnon BD. Intratester and intertester reliability of clinical measures of lower extremity anatomic characteristics: implications for multicenter studies. Clin J Sport Med. 2006 Mar;16(2):155-61. doi: 10.1097/00042752-200603000-00012. PubMed 16603886 ↗
  • Sporndly-Nees S, Dasberg B, Nielsen RO, Boesen MI, Langberg H. The navicular position test - a reliable measure of the navicular bone position during rest and loading. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2011 Sep;6(3):199-205. PubMed 21904698 ↗
  • Westrick RB, Miller JM, Carow SD, Gerber JP. Exploration of the y-balance test for assessment of upper quarter closed kinetic chain performance. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Apr;7(2):139-47. PubMed 22530188 ↗
  • Kawaguchi K, Taketomi S, Mizutani Y, Inui H, Yamagami R, Kono K, Takagi K, Kage T, Sameshima S, Tanaka S, Haga N. Hip Abductor Muscle Strength Deficit as a Risk Factor for Inversion Ankle Sprain in Male College Soccer Players: A Prospective Cohort Study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021 Jul 26;9(7):23259671211020287. doi: 10.1177/23259671211020287. eCollection 2021 Jul. PubMed 34377718 ↗
  • Cornwall MW, McPoil TG. Relationship between static foot posture and foot mobility. J Foot Ankle Res. 2011 Jan 18;4:4. doi: 10.1186/1757-1146-4-4. PubMed 21244705 ↗
  • Bennell KL, Talbot RC, Wajswelner H, Techovanich W, Kelly DH, Hall AJ. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a weight-bearing lunge measure of ankle dorsiflexion. Aust J Physiother. 1998;44(3):175-180. doi: 10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60377-9. PubMed 11676731 ↗
  • Dennis RJ, Finch CF, Elliott BC, Farhart PJ. The reliability of musculoskeletal screening tests used in cricket. Phys Ther Sport. 2008 Feb;9(1):25-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2007.09.004. Epub 2007 Nov 8. PubMed 19083701 ↗
  • Stott S. The Duncan-Ely test: time for standardization. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2015 Oct;57(10):895-6. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12794. Epub 2015 May 6. No abstract available. PubMed 25952692 ↗
  • Olivencia O, Godinez GM, Dages J, Duda C, Kaplan K, Kolber MJ, Kaplan, Kolber. THE RELIABILITY AND MINIMAL DETECTABLE CHANGE OF THE ELY AND ACTIVE KNEE EXTENSION TESTS. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2020 Oct;15(5):776-782. doi: 10.26603/ijspt20200776. PubMed 33110697 ↗
  • Ball P, Johnson GR. Technique for the measurement of hindfoot inversion and eversion and its use to study a normal population. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 1996 Apr;11(3):165-169. doi: 10.1016/0268-0033(95)00059-3. PubMed 11415615 ↗
  • Konor MM, Morton S, Eckerson JM, Grindstaff TL. Reliability of three measures of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Jun;7(3):279-87. PubMed 22666642 ↗
  • Reurink G, Goudswaard GJ, Oomen HG, Moen MH, Tol JL, Verhaar JA, Weir A. Reliability of the active and passive knee extension test in acute hamstring injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2013 Aug;41(8):1757-61. doi: 10.1177/0363546513490650. Epub 2013 Jun 4. PubMed 23735425 ↗
  • Liu H, Shen Y, Xiong Y, Zhou H, Mao Y, Shen Q, Hong W, Liu M, Liu Y, Qiu L, Zhang Z, Jia Y. Psychometric Properties of Four Common Clinical Tests for Assessing Hamstring Flexibility in Young Adults. Front Physiol. 2022 Jun 15;13:911240. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.911240. eCollection 2022. PubMed 35784887 ↗
  • Carlsson AM. Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain. 1983 May;16(1):87-101. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(83)90088-X. PubMed 6602967 ↗
  • Shah CH, Brown JD. Reliability and Validity of the Short-Form 12 Item Version 2 (SF-12v2) Health-Related Quality of Life Survey and Disutilities Associated with Relevant Conditions in the U.S. Older Adult Population. J Clin Med. 2020 Feb 29;9(3):661. doi: 10.3390/jcm9030661. PubMed 32121371 ↗
  • Harvey LA, Katalinic OM, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Lannin NA, Schurr K. Stretch for the treatment and prevention of contracture: an abridged republication of a Cochrane Systematic Review. J Physiother. 2017 Apr;63(2):67-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2017.02.014. Epub 2017 Mar 14. PubMed 28433236 ↗
  • Iordache S, Cursaru A, Serban B, Costache M, Spiridonica R, Cretu B, Cirstoiu C. Melorheostosis: A Review of the Literature and a Case Report. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 Apr 30;59(5):869. doi: 10.3390/medicina59050869. PubMed 37241101 ↗
  • Smith GC, Pingree MJ, Freeman LA, Matsumoto JM, Howe BM, Kannas SN, Pyfferoen MD, Struss LT, Wenger DE, Amrami KK, Matsumoto M, Jurisson ML. Melorheostosis: A Retrospective Clinical Analysis of 24 Patients at the Mayo Clinic. PM R. 2017 Mar;9(3):283-288. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2016.07.530. Epub 2016 Jul 30. PubMed 27485676 ↗
  • Byberg S, Abrahamsen B, Kassem M, Ralston S, Schwarz P. Clinical improvement in a patient with monostotic melorheostosis after treatment with denosumab: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2018 Sep 27;12(1):278. doi: 10.1186/s13256-018-1820-y. PubMed 30257703 ↗
  • Slimani S, Nezzar A, Makhloufi H. Successful treatment of pain in melorheostosis with zoledronate, with improvement on bone scintigraphy. BMJ Case Rep. 2013 Jun 21;2013:bcr2013009820. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2013-009820. PubMed 23813581 ↗
  • Judkiewicz AM, Murphey MD, Resnik CS, Newberg AH, Temple HT, Smith WS. Advanced imaging of melorheostosis with emphasis on MRI. Skeletal Radiol. 2001 Aug;30(8):447-53. doi: 10.1007/s002560100366. PubMed 11479750 ↗
  • Kang H, Jha S, Deng Z, Fratzl-Zelman N, Cabral WA, Ivovic A, Meylan F, Hanson EP, Lange E, Katz J, Roschger P, Klaushofer K, Cowen EW, Siegel RM, Marini JC, Bhattacharyya T. Somatic activating mutations in MAP2K1 cause melorheostosis. Nat Commun. 2018 Apr 11;9(1):1390. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03720-z. PubMed 29643386 ↗
  • Fiore M, Bortoli M, Sambri A, Lotrecchiano L, Lovato L, Mirelli M, Neri I, De Paolis M, Piraccini BM, Gargiulo M. Soft Tissue Vascular Anomalies of the Extremities: A Proposed Diagnostic Approach. Life (Basel). 2024 May 23;14(6):670. doi: 10.3390/life14060670. PubMed 38929654 ↗
  • Butler RJ, Lehr ME, Fink ML, Kiesel KB, Plisky PJ. Dynamic balance performance and noncontact lower extremity injury in college football players: an initial study. Sports Health. 2013 Sep;5(5):417-22. doi: 10.1177/1941738113498703. PubMed 24427412 ↗
  • Myles PS, Troedel S, Boquest M, Reeves M. The pain visual analog scale: is it linear or nonlinear? Anesth Analg. 1999 Dec;89(6):1517-20. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199912000-00038. PubMed 10589640 ↗
  • Freyschmidt J. Melorheostosis: a review of 23 cases. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(3):474-9. doi: 10.1007/s003300000562. PubMed 11288855 ↗
  • Soylu C, Kutuk B. Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of SF-12 Health Survey. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2022 Summer;33(2):108-117. doi: 10.5080/u25700. English, Turkish. PubMed 35730511 ↗
  • Appelman-Dijkstra N, Van Lierop A, Papapoulos S. SOST-Related Sclerosing Bone Dysplasias. 2002 Jun 4 [updated 2024 Aug 1]. In: Adam MP, Bick S, Mirzaa GM, Pagon RA, Wallace SE, Amemiya A, editors. GeneReviews(R) [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2026. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK587318/ PubMed 36508511 ↗
  • Kumar R, Sankhala SS, Bijarnia I. Melorheostosis - Case Report of Rare Disease. J Orthop Case Rep. 2014 Apr-Jun;4(2):25-7. doi: 10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.162. PubMed 27298954 ↗
  • Deshmukh NS, Phansopkar P. Melorheostosis: A Systematic Review of Clinical Manifestations, Diagnostic Challenges, Therapeutic Strategies, and Physiotherapeutic Interventions. Cureus. 2025 Mar 11;17(3):e80407. doi: 10.7759/cureus.80407. eCollection 2025 Mar. PubMed 40213745 ↗
  • Deshmukh NS. Melorheostosis (Leri's Disease): A Review. Cureus. 2024 Jun 8;16(6):e61950. doi: 10.7759/cureus.61950. eCollection 2024 Jun. PubMed 38978887 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — Individual participant data (IPD) will not be shared to protect the privacy of the single participant involved in this case report.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 26, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07521150
Lead sponsor
Yeditepe University
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Apr 9, 2026
Start date
Apr 18, 2026
Primary completion
May 19, 2026
Completion
Sep 22, 2026 (estimated)
Last update
Jun 26, 2026

Study contacts

Aslı Yeral, Asst. Prof. Dr.
study chair · Yeditepe University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is active, not recruiting, as verified in Jun 2026. 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