Menu
Recruiting NCT07724691

Spinal Mobilization With Arm Movement and Kaltenborn Mobilization in Adhesive Capsulitis

No phase Interventional Adhesive Capsulitis Frozen Shoulder Mulligan Mobilization Spinal Mobilization

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: Spinal Mobilization with Arm Movement, Kaltenborn Mobilization.
Who it may be relevant to
Registry conditions: Adhesive Capsulitis, Frozen Shoulder, Mulligan Mobilization, Spinal Mobilization. Basic parameters: 30 years — 50 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
Pakistan
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 →

Official title

Effects of Spinal Mobilization With Arm Movement and Kaltenborn Mobilization on Pain, Range of Motion, Functional Reaching, and Disability in Adhesive Capsulitis

Overview

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.

Detailed description

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.

Interventions

  • Other Spinal Mobilization with Arm Movement
    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, im
  • Other Kaltenborn Mobilization
    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.

Primary outcome measures

  • Pain by Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) [Time frame: 6 weeks]
  • Range of Motion (External Rotation, Abduction, Internal Rotation) [Time frame: 6 weeks]
  • Functional Disability [Time frame: 6 weeks]

Eligibility criteria

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

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
Single blind
Primary purpose
Treatment

Study locations

Pakistan · 2 centers
  • Alfalah Medical Center — Lahore
  • Jinnah Hospital — Lahore

Publications

  • 10. Umar M, Anwar A, Khan N, Marryam M, Rashid H. Effectiveness Of Kaltenborn Mobilization Versus Muscle Energy Technique On Shoulder Range Of Motion In Adhesive Capsulitis. Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College. 2023;27(3).
  • Pattnaik S, Kumar P, Sarkar B, Oraon AK. Comparison of Kaltenborn mobilization technique and muscle energy technique on range of motion, pain and function in subjects with chronic shoulder adhesive capsulitis. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2023 Dec;43(2):149-159. doi: 10.1142/S1013702523500166. Epub 2023 Jun 21. PMID 37583922
  • 8. Zohaib M, Anwar S. Comparison Of Kaltenborn Mobilization With Muscle Energy Technique In Patients With Adhesive Capsulitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. International Journal of Physical Therapy Research & Practice. 2025;4(4):219-29.
  • 7. Shahzadi M, Tanveer S, Batool M, Sheikh SA, Faraz K, Fatima Z. Comparing Muscle Energy Technique and Kaltenborn-Evjenth Orthopaedic Manual Therapy: A Study on Effectiveness in Treating Chronic Low Back Pain. Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Research. 2023;3(2):1200-5.
  • Seo Y, Lee J, Han D. The effects of spinal mobilization with arm movements on shoulder muscle strengthening. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Jan;27(1):11-3. doi: 10.1589/jpts.27.11. Epub 2015 Jan 9. PMID 25642026
  • 5. Afzal F. Effectiveness of Kaltenborn Joint Mobilization Technique Versus Muscle Energy Technique on Pain and Disability in Patients with Shoulder Adhesive Capsulitis. Journal of Clinical and Nursing Research. 2022;6(5).
  • 4. Sarwar N, Siddique S, Jawa R. Efficacy of Spencer Technique and Scapular Mobilization in the Management of Adhesive Capsulitis: A Narrative Review: Spencer Technique and Scapular Mobilization for Adhesive Capsulitis. Pakistan Journal of Rehabilitation. 2026;15(1):5-8.
  • Jacob L, Gyasi RM, Koyanagi A, Haro JM, Smith L, Kostev K. Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Adhesive Capsulitis of the Shoulder in Older Adults from Germany. J Clin Med. 2023 Jan 14;12(2):669. doi: 10.3390/jcm12020669. PMID 36675599

Identifiers

NCT: NCT07724691 · REC/RCR & AHS/25/0142

Primary sources (government registries)

View this study on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗