Stabilizing Reversal and Rhythmic Stabilization vs Pelvic Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation in Stroke Patients
NCT Number: NCT06459388
Status: RECRUITING
Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
Phases: NA
Conditions: Stroke, Ischemic
Interventions: OTHER: Stabilizing Reversals and Rhythmic Stabilization|OTHER: Pelvic Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation
Sponsor: Riphah International University
Sex: ALL
Age: ADULT, OLDER_ADULT
Enrollment: 50
Study Design: Allocation: RANDOMIZED|Intervention Model: PARALLEL|Masking: SINGLE (OUTCOMES_ASSESSOR)|Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
Start Date: 2024-05-01
Completion Date: 2024-12-01
Locations: Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, Punjab, 54600, Pakistan

Summary:
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the effects of stabilizing reversal and rhythmic stabilization versus pelvic proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation on trunk control, postural stability and mobility in stroke patients. The main question it aims to answer is:

Is there any difference in effects of stabilizing reversal and rhythmic stabilization versus pelvic proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation on trunk control, postural stability and mobility in stroke patients?

Researchers will compare stabilizing reversal and rhythmic stabilization to pelvic proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation to see if there any difference in effects of stabilizing reversal and rhythmic stabilization versus pelvic proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation on trunk control, postural stability and mobility in stroke patient.

Participants will be divided into two groups:

Group A will receive stabilizing reversals and rhythmic reversals technique. The patient will perform 3 sets with 15 repetitions in each session, 5 days per week for 8 weeks.

Group B will receive Pelvic PNF protocol. The treatment protocol will be followed 5 days a week for 8 weeks (i.e. 20 sessions) and each session will last for 30 minutes.

Primary Outcome Measures: Trunk Impairment Scale, TIS assesses static and dynamic sitting balance and trunk coordination in a sitting position. On the static and dynamic sitting balance and coordination subscales the maximal scores that can be attained are 7, 10 and 6 points. The total score for TIS ranges between 0 for a minimal performance to 23 for a perfect performance. Test/retest and inter observer reliability for the TIS total score (ICC) - 0.96 and 0.99, respectively., 0 week, 4th week, 8th week|Postural Assessment Scale, Postural assessment scale assess and monitor postural control after stroke. It contains 12 four-level items of varying difficulty for assessing ability to maintain or change a given lying, sitting or standing posture. The PASS consists of 2 sections (maintaining posture and changing a posture) with a 4-point scale (0 indicating no performance and 3 indicating maximum performance) to describe each task. The total score ranges from 0 - 36., 0 week, 4th week, 8th week|Functional Reach Test, Functional Reach Test (FRT) is a clinical outcome measure and assessment tool for ascertaining dynamic balance in one simple task. Measurements are interpreted as: 10"/25 cm or greater Low risk of falls, 6"/15cm to 10"/25cm Risk of falling is 2x greater than normal, 6"/15cm or less Risk of falling is 4x greater than normal unwilling to reach Risk of falling is 8x greater than normal., 0 week, 4th week, 8th week|Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment, Performance oriented mobility assessment assesses a person's perception of balance and stability during activities of daily living and their fear of falling. The POMA test has a gait score and a balance score. It uses a 3-point ordinal scale of 0, 1 and 2. Gait is scored over 12 and balance is scored over 16 totaling 28. The lower the score on the POMA test, the higher the risk of falling. 25-28 = low fall risk, 19-24 = medium fall risk, \< 19 = high fall risk., 0 week, 4th week, 8th week