Effectiveness of Exercise Relative Motion Orthoses for Limited Finger Joint Motion

NCT ID: NCT06985459

Last Updated: 2025-05-29

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

RECRUITING

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

148 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2025-05-31

Study Completion Date

2028-05-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

This randomized controlled trial investigates the effectiveness of two exercise orthosis designs-the Relative Motion Flexion (RMF) and Relative Motion Extension (RME) orthoses-for improving motion in patients with proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) flexion or extension deficits. A total of 148 adult patients with acute hand injuries and a minimum 10° difference between active and passive PIP joint motion will be enrolled. Participants are stratified by their primary motion deficit and randomized to either the exercise orthosis or placebo orthosis group. The orthosis is worn for 4 weeks, with follow-up assessments at weeks 6 and 8 to evaluate range of motion and patient satisfaction. All participants will continue standard hand therapy throughout the study.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The prevention and treatment of proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) contractures are key goals in hand rehabilitation, often addressed with orthotic interventions. The choice of orthosis design depends on the severity and timing of the injury or disease. During the acute stage, static splinting is typically used, while more dynamic orthoses, such as static-progressive splinting, are recommended in the chronic stages to manage contractures. If a contracture already exists, hand therapists differentiate between dynamic and fixed deformities in PIPJ flexion or extension. Fixed deformities do not or hardly respond to passive mobilisation, while dynamic deformities show a difference in active and passive range of PIPJ motion - e.g. in cases of soft tissue adhesions hindering active motion.

In addition to traditional passive orthoses, which stretch the PIPJ in a fixed position during dedicated periods, exercise-based orthoses (relative motion orthoses, RM) have been developed to enhance PIPJ mobility during everyday activities. These include Relative Motion Extension (RME) and Relative Motion Flexion (RMF) orthoses, designed to improve both flexion and extension. Studies have shown that RME orthoses improve active flexion, while RMF orthoses aid in active extension, with patients reporting high satisfaction and functional benefits from using these devices in daily tasks. Furthermore, RM orthoses have been widely adopted by therapists, demonstrating benefits in improving functional hand use and promoting non-intentional exercise.

Since the use of relative motion (RM) orthoses - especially as exercise orthoses - is relatively new, few prospective studies have examined their effectiveness in improving PIPJ motion. Therefore, this study aims to compare the effectiveness of exercise RM orthoses with a placebo orthosis to identify the most beneficial treatment strategies for patients with limited PIPJ motion. The goal is to strengthen the evidence base and refining the clinical application of exercise-based orthotic interventions.

The primary objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two orthoses designs, the exercise RME and RMF orthosis vs. a placebo orthosis.

Secondary objectives are:

1. To evaluate if there is a clinically relevant difference in activity performance at 4 and 8 weeks after orthosis fabrication.
2. To assess if there is a statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction with (i) the orthosis and (ii) treatment outcome (satisfaction with the daily use of the hand) after 4 weeks (i and ii) and 8 weeks (ii).
3. To document adherence to orthotic intervention from baseline to 4 weeks. We strive for 37 patients per arm and a total sample size of 74 patients per study group. This results in 74 patients in the extension-group and 74 patients in the flexion-group and a total of 148 patients enrolled in this study.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Stiffness

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

The investigators plan to stratify participants into two groups based on their greater PIPJ movement deficit (in flexion or in extension). Within each group, they are randomized to one of the orthosis interventions.

This trial has four intervention arms:

* Arm 1: PIP extension deficit treated with an exercise RMF orthosis.
* Arm 2: PIP extension deficit treated with a placebo RMF orthosis.
* Arm 3: PIP flexion deficits treated with an exercise RME orthosis.
* Arm 4: PIP flexion deficits treated with a placebo RMF orthosis.
Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Investigators

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

PIP extension deficit treated with an exercise RMF orthosis

The orthosis is worn for 4 weeks. At week 6 and 8, follow-up visits are planned to measure PIPJ range of motion and patient satisfaction. For all arms, standard hand therapy treatment continues as needed.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

PIP extension deficit treated with an exercise RMF orthosis

Intervention Type DEVICE

The RM orthoses will be worn between 6-12 hours per day during functional use.

PIP extension deficit treated with a placebo RMF orthosis

The orthosis is worn for 4 weeks. At week 6 and 8, follow-up visits are planned to measure PIPJ range of motion and patient satisfaction. For all arms, standard hand therapy treatment continues as needed.

Group Type PLACEBO_COMPARATOR

PIP extension deficit treated with a placebo RMF orthosis

Intervention Type DEVICE

The placebo orthosis has the same design as the exercise RM orthoses, but without a difference in the extension or flexion angle, respectively, to the adjacent finger - therefore neutralizing the "quadriga phenomena", which is the effect that makes RM orthoses work.

PIP flexion deficits treated with an exercise RME orthosis

The orthosis is worn for 4 weeks. At week 6 and 8, follow-up visits are planned to measure PIPJ range of motion and patient satisfaction. For all arms, standard hand therapy treatment continues as needed.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

PIP flexion deficits treated with an exercise RME orthosis

Intervention Type DEVICE

The dedicated orthosis wearing time is 6-12 hours per day during functional use.

PIP flexion deficits treated with a placebo RMF orthosis

The orthosis is worn for 4 weeks. At week 6 and 8, follow-up visits are planned to measure PIPJ range of motion and patient satisfaction. For all arms, standard hand therapy treatment continues as needed

Group Type PLACEBO_COMPARATOR

PIP flexion deficits treated with a placebo RMF orthosis

Intervention Type DEVICE

The placebo orthosis have the same design as the exercise RM orthoses, but without a difference in the extension or flexion angle, respectively, to the adjacent finger - therefore neutralizing the "quadriga phenomena", which is the effect that makes RM orthoses work.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

PIP extension deficit treated with an exercise RMF orthosis

The RM orthoses will be worn between 6-12 hours per day during functional use.

Intervention Type DEVICE

PIP extension deficit treated with a placebo RMF orthosis

The placebo orthosis has the same design as the exercise RM orthoses, but without a difference in the extension or flexion angle, respectively, to the adjacent finger - therefore neutralizing the "quadriga phenomena", which is the effect that makes RM orthoses work.

Intervention Type DEVICE

PIP flexion deficits treated with a placebo RMF orthosis

The placebo orthosis have the same design as the exercise RM orthoses, but without a difference in the extension or flexion angle, respectively, to the adjacent finger - therefore neutralizing the "quadriga phenomena", which is the effect that makes RM orthoses work.

Intervention Type DEVICE

PIP flexion deficits treated with an exercise RME orthosis

The dedicated orthosis wearing time is 6-12 hours per day during functional use.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* PIPJ motion deficit with a minimum difference of 10° between passive and active motion
* To have an acute injury, i.e. operated on or within maximum 6 weeks of accident
* Only one hand is affected
* Adult patients over 18 years of age
* Understanding German, French or English
* Hand therapy treatment in-house at Inselspital in Bern
* Ability to give informed consent as documented by signature

Exclusion Criteria

* Previous injuries to the hand or PIPJ (e.g., intra-articular fractures, PIPJ ligament damage) that may limit baseline joint mobility and influence responsiveness to the intervention.
* Presence of conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that may affect PIPJ stiffness, pain, or inflammation.
* Inability to follow the procedures of the study, e.g. due to language problems, psychological disorders, dementia
* Boutonniere deformity
* Minors (below 18 years of age)
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Bernadette Tobler

Head of hand therapy research unit

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

University Hospital Bern

Bern, Canton of Bern, Switzerland

Site Status RECRUITING

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Switzerland

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Bernadette Tobler-Ammann, PhD

Role: CONTACT

+41 31 632 85 58

Esther Vögelin, Prof, MD

Role: CONTACT

+41 31 63 2 37 18

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Bernadette Christina Tobler-Ammann, PhD

Role: primary

+41 31 632 85 58

Jennifer Niederhäuser, Bachelor in OT

Role: backup

+41 31 632 85 58

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Glasgow C, Fleming J, Tooth LR, Peters S. Randomized controlled trial of daily total end range time (TERT) for Capener splinting of the stiff proximal interphalangeal joint. Am J Occup Ther. 2012 Mar-Apr;66(2):243-8. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2012.002816.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22394534 (View on PubMed)

Horn KK, Jennings S, Richardson G, Vliet DV, Hefford C, Abbott JH. The patient-specific functional scale: psychometrics, clinimetrics, and application as a clinical outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Jan;42(1):30-42. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2012.3727. Epub 2011 Oct 25.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22031594 (View on PubMed)

Hefford C, Abbott JH, Arnold R, Baxter GD. The patient-specific functional scale: validity, reliability, and responsiveness in patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal problems. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Feb;42(2):56-65. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2012.3953. Epub 2012 Feb 1.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22333510 (View on PubMed)

Schreuders TA. The quadriga phenomenon: a review and clinical relevance. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2012 Jul;37(6):513-22. doi: 10.1177/1753193411430810. Epub 2011 Dec 14.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22170246 (View on PubMed)

Shaw AV, Verma Y, Tucker S, Jain A, Furniss D. Relative motion orthoses for early active motion after finger extensor and flexor tendon repairs: A systematic review. J Hand Ther. 2023 Apr-Jun;36(2):332-346. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2023.02.011. Epub 2023 Apr 8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 37037728 (View on PubMed)

Arslan OB, Sigirtmac IC, Ayvali C, Bas CE, Ayhan E, Bilgin SS, Oksuz C. The Use of Relative Motion Flexion Orthoses for Chronic Boutonniere Deformity. J Hand Surg Am. 2024 May;49(5):488.e1-488.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.08.007. Epub 2022 Oct 4.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 36202676 (View on PubMed)

Yates SE, Glinsky JV, Hirth MJ, Fuller JT. The use of exercise relative motion orthoses to improve proximal interphalangeal joint motion: A survey of Australian hand therapy practice. J Hand Ther. 2023 Apr-Jun;36(2):414-424. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2022.12.002. Epub 2023 Apr 6.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 37031058 (View on PubMed)

Arslan OB, Sahin Y, Sigirtmac IC, Yildiz B, Ayhan E, Oksuz C. Use of relative motion orthoses from the perspective of hand-injured patients: A qualitative study. J Hand Ther. 2023 Apr-Jun;36(2):425-432. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2023.02.003. Epub 2023 Apr 8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 37037730 (View on PubMed)

Howell JW, Ewald SG, Schwartz DA. Exercise relative motion orthoses: Use of the pencil test and variations of its use for assessing and managing different finger conditions. J Hand Ther. 2023 Apr-Jun;36(2):473-478. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2022.10.004. Epub 2023 Mar 11. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 36914489 (View on PubMed)

Wajon S, Howell JW. Prescription of exercise relative motion orthoses to improve limited proximal interphalangeal joint movement: A prospective, multi-center, consecutive case series. J Hand Ther. 2023 Apr-Jun;36(2):378-388. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2021.09.006. Epub 2022 Jan 14.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 35039211 (View on PubMed)

Michlovitz SL, Harris BA, Watkins MP. Therapy interventions for improving joint range of motion: A systematic review. J Hand Ther. 2004 Apr-Jun;17(2):118-31. doi: 10.1197/j.jht.2004.02.002.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 15162100 (View on PubMed)

Yates SE, Glinsky JV, Hirth MJ, Fuller JT. Orthotic interventions for restoring proximal interphalangeal joint motion for patients with hand injuries or conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hand Ther. 2024 Oct-Dec;37(4):495-506. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2023.12.018. Epub 2024 Jan 26.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 38278697 (View on PubMed)

Kamnerdnakta S, Huetteman HE, Chung KC. Complications of Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Injuries: Prevention and Treatment. Hand Clin. 2018 May;34(2):267-288. doi: 10.1016/j.hcl.2017.12.014.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29625645 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

RM Orthosis Study 2025-00427

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

LRTI vs Internal Brace for CMC OA
NCT03971188 COMPLETED NA