Evaluating Functional Outcomes of 3D-Printed Splints in Post-Stroke Upper Limb Recovery
For patients and families
In plain language
An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.
- What is being studied
- The protocol lists: 3D Printed splint, conventional splint.
- Who it may be relevant to
- Registry conditions: Stroke, Stroke Rehabilitation, Hemiparesis of the Upper Limb Following Stroke. Basic parameters: from 18 years · All.
- What needs checking
- Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
- Where it takes place
- Saudi Arabia
- Next step
- Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Unsure about the terms? Read our patient guide →
Overview
This study aims to evaluate the upper limb motor recovery using a 3D-printed dynamic orthosis compared to a conventional one as part of a rehabilitation program in individuals with chronic stroke. The main question it seeks to answer: Which type of dynamic splint (3D-printed or traditional), combined with the task-oriented therapy program, leads to greater improvement in affected upper-limb function, patient satisfaction, and usability in stroke patients? Researchers will compare these two types of dynamic splints. Participants will: Receive 20 sessions of task-oriented therapy combined with either a 3D-printed dynamic splint or a traditional dynamic splint. Visit the clinic five times a week for a period of four weeks. Undergo assessments before and after the 4-week program.
Detailed description
Background: After a stroke, intensive motor rehabilitation is essential to improve upper limb function and independence. 3D-printed dynamic splints offer precise joint alignment, adjustable resistance, and enhanced comfort, facilitating repetitive, task-oriented practice and promoting neuroplasticity. To date, no studies have directly compared the effectiveness of 3D-printed dynamic splints with conventional dynamic splints combined with task-oriented therapy for improving upper limb function after stroke. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of 3D-printed versus conventional dynamic splints, both combined with task-oriented therapy, on upper limb motor recovery and patient satisfaction in chronic stroke patients. Methods: A randomized controlled trial will assign participants to either a 3D-printed splint + task-oriented therapy group or a conventional splint + therapy group. The intervention will last 4 weeks, with five 60-minute sessions per week, and daily splint use for 6 hours.
Inclusion Criteria: Adults ≥18 years with chronic stroke and upper limb hemiparesis, able to understand and follow instructions, MMSE ≥24, mild to moderate upper-limb spasticity, and not participating in other clinical or research studies simultaneously. Exclusion Criteria: Severe spasticity, upper limb deformities or contractures, unilateral neglect, or severe language or cognitive impairments.Outcomes: Primary outcomes: Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Box and Block Test (BBT). Secondary outcomes: Motor Activity Log (MAL), Arabic version of Stroke Impact Scale (SIS-16), and Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0).
Interventions
- Device 3D Printed splint
Patients undergo 60-minute therapy sessions 5 times per week for 4 weeks, including stretching and task-oriented training. Splint Protocol: A 3D-printed dynamic splint is worn during the 60-minute clinic session, plus an additional 5 hours daily on training days and 6 hours daily on non-training days - Device conventional splint
Patients undergo 60-minute therapy sessions 5 times per week for 4 weeks, including stretching and task-oriented training. Splint Protocol: A conventional dynamic splint is worn during the 60-minute clinic session, plus an additional 5 hours daily on training days and 6 hours daily on non-training days
Primary outcome measures
- Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) [Time frame: at baseline and after intervention (4 weeks)]
- Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) [Time frame: at baseline and after intervention (4 weeks)]
- Box and Block Test (BBT) [Time frame: at baseline and after intervention (4 weeks)]
Secondary outcome measures (3)
- Motor Activity Log (MAL) [Time frame: at baseline and after intervention (4 weeks)]
- Arabic Version of Stroke Impact Scale (SIS-16) [Time frame: at baseline and after intervention (4 weeks)]
- Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST) [Time frame: Each session (5 times per week)]
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria
- Over 18 years old.
- Chronic stroke
- Upper limb hemiparalysis
- Ability to understand and follow orders and able to provide informed consent (Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) > 24)
- Upper-limb mild to moderate spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale 1+ to 3 at the wrist).
- Not participating in other clinical or research studies at the same time
Exclusion criteria
- Had deficits in language or cognitive impairments that were likely to interfere with their cooperation in the study
- Deformity or presented with severe upper-limb contractures
- Inability to commit to the time requirement of the protocol.
- Unilateral neglect
Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.
Healthy volunteers: No
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Model
- Parallel assignment
- Masking
- Double blind
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
Study locations
Saudi Arabia · 1 center
- Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Humanitarian City — Riyadh
Publications
- Zheng Y, Liu G, Yu L, Wang Y, Fang Y, Shen Y, Huang X, Qiao L, Yang J, Zhang Y, Hua Z. Effects of a 3D-printed orthosis compared to a low-temperature thermoplastic plate orthosis on wrist flexor spasticity in chronic hemiparetic stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2020 Feb;34(2):194-204. doi: 10.1177/0269215519885174. Epub 2019 Nov 5. PMID 31686529
- Jeon HS, Woo YK, Yi CH, Kwon OY, Jung MY, Lee YH, Hwang S, Choi BR. Effect of intensive training with a spring-assisted hand orthosis on movement smoothness in upper extremity following stroke: a pilot clinical trial. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2012 Jul-Aug;19(4):320-8. doi: 10.1310/tsr1904-320. PMID 22750961
- Andringa AS, Van de Port IG, Meijer JW. Tolerance and effectiveness of a new dynamic hand-wrist orthosis in chronic stroke patients. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33(2):225-31. doi: 10.3233/NRE-130949. PMID 23949058
- Yang YS, Tseng CH, Fang WC, Han IW, Huang SC. Effectiveness of a New 3D-Printed Dynamic Hand-Wrist Splint on Hand Motor Function and Spasticity in Chronic Stroke Patients. J Clin Med. 2021 Sep 30;10(19):4549. doi: 10.3390/jcm10194549. PMID 34640564
- Chen ZH, Yang YL, Lin KW, Sun PC, Chen CS. Functional Assessment of 3D-Printed Multifunction Assistive Hand Device for Chronic Stroke Patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2022;30:1261-1266. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2022.3173034. Epub 2022 May 17. PMID 35533167
Identifiers
NCT: NCT07243314 · No.: 151-2025-IRB · Not found