StrokeSENSIBLE-EXONCT05976087
Improving Grasp Function in People With Sensorimotor Impairments by Combining Electrical Stimulation With a Robotic Hand Orthosis
A study testing SensoExo in people with Stroke and Spinal Cord Injuries, run by Andrea Cimolato at 1 site in Switzerland.
Trial summary
Hand motor and sensory impairments resulting from neurological disorders or injuries affect more than 50 million individuals worldwide. Conditions such as stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) can cause long-term hand impairments, greatly impacting daily activities and social integration. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Stroke, Spinal Cord Injuries, Traumatic Brain Injury
- What is being tested?
- SensoExo
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSwitzerland
- Study dates
- 1 Jul 2023to 30 Jun 2030
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Impairment of the motor and sensory functions of the hand in chronic stage
- The subject should have good proximal arm function (i.e. good shoulder abduction and elevation)
Who cannot join
- Cognitive and communication deficits impairment
- Prior or current psychological diseases such as borderline, schizophrenia, Depression or Maniac Depression
- Major comprehension and memory deficits
- Pregnancy
- Epilepsy
- Pacemaker
- Cybersickness
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Hand motor and sensory impairments resulting from neurological disorders or injuries affect more than 50 million individuals worldwide. Conditions such as stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) can cause long-term hand impairments, greatly impacting daily activities and social integration. Since traditional physiotherapy has limited effectiveness in rehabilitation, assistive devices helping in performing in daily activities have emerged as a necessary solution. Soft exoskeletons offer advantages as they are more comfortable and adaptable for the user, but they often struggle to generate sufficient force. On the other hand, electrical stimulation garments, like e-sleeves, show promise by stimulating nerves and muscles in the forearm. However, achieving precise and stable movement control remains challenging due to difficulties in electrode placement for targeted stimulation. Furthermore, none of the currently available devices are capable of artificially restoring lost sensation in users' hands, limiting their ability to manipulate with fragile objects.
Recognizing these limitations, our study proposes a solution that combines a standard hand soft exoskeleton with: (i) electrical stimulation to the fingers' flexor and extensor muscles to generate artificial muscle contractions synchronized with the exoskeleton motion, compensating for the lack of gripping force, and (ii) electrical stimulation to the nerves to artificially restore the lost sensation of touch, enabling users to receive feedback on the force they are applying when interacting with the environment. The investigators refer to this proposed combination as Sensible-Exo.
Read more
To achieve this goal, our project aims to evaluate the functional improvements in assistive and rehabilitative scenarios using SensoExo in comparison to use only the exoskeleton or having no support at all. The exoskeleton will be coupled with an electrical stimulating sleeve capable of delivering non-invasive electrical stimulation in the form of Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS). A glove with embedded force and bending sensors will be used to modulate the electrical stimulation. Additionally, apart from studying the enhancement of functional tasks, the investigators will explore improvements in body perception, representation, and multi-sensory integration. Indeed, the investigators also aim at identifying the way patients perceive their body by means of ad-hoc virtual reality assessments that has been developed. Before each assessment patient will perform some predefined movement in virtual reality to familiarize with it and increase embodiment.
During the study, participants will perform a range of tasks based on their residual abilities, including motor tasks (e.g., grab and release, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Hand Function Test, grip force regulation test, virtual egg test), cognitive tasks (dual tasks), and assessments of body representation and perception. Some of these tasks will be conducted in Virtual Reality environments, both with and without active stimulation.
- Conditions
- Stroke, Spinal Cord Injuries, Traumatic Brain Injury
- Being tested
- SensoExo
- Keywords
- sensorimotor, TENS, FES, exoskeleton, wearable robotics
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke, Spinal Cord Injuries, Brain Injuries, Traumatic
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
SensoExoDevice
combination of sensory feedback and the use of soft exoskeleton
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | Experimental | Not described Receives: Device: SensoExo |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Range of Motion with electrical stimulation and without no electrical stimulation
Range of motion will be measured and compared among conditions
Measured: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after
Change in the area with tactile feedback in the hand with electrical stimulation and with no electrical stimulation
Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament Test will be used to assess the residual tactile feedback
Measured: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after
Change in functional tasks performance with sensory feedback and without sensory feedback quantified by the number of successful grasp and release tasks
Number of successful transportation of objects over an obstacle
Measured: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after
Change between functional tasks with sensory feedback and with no sensory feedback in number of virtual egg successful grasping
Number of successful transportations of fragile objects over an obstacle
Measured: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after
Change between functional tasks with sensory feedback and with no sensory feedback in grasping force
Grasping forces will be assessed during functional performance of the subjects
Measured: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after
Change between tasks with sensory feedback and with no sensory feedback in arm joints kinemtics
Joint kinematics measurements will be measured with motion capture systems during functional performance of the subjects
Measured: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after
Secondary outcomes (6)
Change in experienced physical, mental, and social effects
Neuro-QuL measurement system will be as assessment tool
Measured: up one week before first session and up one week after last session
Change in Proprioceptive drift between different conditions
To measure embodiment subjects will be asked after VR sessions to indicate where they feel their arm without looking at the limb in real world. This is a measure of embodiment.
Measured: up one week before first session and up one week after last session
Change in Telescoping measures between different conditions
To measure embodiment subjects will be asked after VR sessions to indicate how long they feel their arm without looking at the limb in real world. This is a measure of embodiment.
Measured: up one week before first session and up one week after last session
Change from baseline performance between tasks accomplished with sensory feedback and with no sensory feedback in Embodiment
Embodiment will be measured with questionnaires (from -3 to +3, +3 totally agrees; two questions are from 1 to 10 (to measure vividness, where 10 is max vividness) and from 1 to 100 (to measure prevalence, where 100 is max duration of the embodiment feeling))
Measured: up one week before first session and up one week after last session
Measures of self-body representation
This will be measured in virtual reality by means of ad-hoc Body Landmark test. This is a body representation measurements.
Measured: up one week before first session; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up one week after last session
Measures of body-space representation
This will be measured in virtual reality by means of ad-hoc Hand Peri personal Space test. This is a body representation measurements.
Measured: up one week before first session; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up one week after last session
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 Aug 2023
- Study start1 Jul 2023
- Primary completion30 Jun 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Jun 2030 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (15)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for StrokeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Andrea Cimolato
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Andrea Cimolato, ETH Zurich
- Investigators
- Stanisa Raspopovic, PhD, Principal investigator, ETH Zurich
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05976087
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1-010428
- Acronym
- SENSIBLE-EXO
- Status last verified
- Aug 2025
- First submitted
- 19 Jul 2023
- Last updated
- 19 Aug 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Dannenbaum RM, Dykes RW. Sensory loss in the hand after sensory stroke: therapeutic rationale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988 Oct;69(10):833-9.
PubMed 3178450Carey LM, Matyas TA, Oke LE. Sensory loss in stroke patients: effective training of tactile and proprioceptive discrimination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Jun;74(6):602-11. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(93)90158-7.
PubMed 8503750Finnerup NB, Johannesen IL, Fuglsang-Frederiksen A, Bach FW, Jensen TS. Sensory function in spinal cord injury patients with and without central pain. Brain. 2003 Jan;126(Pt 1):57-70. doi: 10.1093/brain/awg007.
PubMed 12477697Fujimoto ST, Longhi L, Saatman KE, Conte V, Stocchetti N, McIntosh TK. Motor and cognitive function evaluation following experimental traumatic brain injury. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004 Jul;28(4):365-78. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.06.002.
PubMed 15341032Dannenbaum RM, Jones LA. The assessment and treatment of patients who have sensory loss following cortical lesions. J Hand Ther. 1993 Apr-Jun;6(2):130-8. doi: 10.1016/s0894-1130(12)80294-8.
PubMed 8343879Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJ. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003 Sep;34(9):2181-6. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000087172.16305.CD. Epub 2003 Aug 7.
PubMed 12907818Wade DT. Measuring arm impairment and disability after stroke. Int Disabil Stud. 1989 Apr-Jun;11(2):89-92. doi: 10.3109/03790798909166398.
PubMed 2698395Fuhrer MJ, Rintala DH, Hart KA, Clearman R, Young ME. Relationship of life satisfaction to impairment, disability, and handicap among persons with spinal cord injury living in the community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992 Jun;73(6):552-7.
PubMed 1622304Noreau L, Fougeyrollas P. Long-term consequences of spinal cord injury on social participation: the occurrence of handicap situations. Disabil Rehabil. 2000 Mar 10;22(4):170-80. doi: 10.1080/096382800296863.
PubMed 10798305Butzer T, Lambercy O, Arata J, Gassert R. Fully Wearable Actuated Soft Exoskeleton for Grasping Assistance in Everyday Activities. Soft Robot. 2021 Apr;8(2):128-143. doi: 10.1089/soro.2019.0135. Epub 2020 Jun 18.
PubMed 32552422Beekhuizen KS. New perspectives on improving upper extremity function after spinal cord injury. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2005 Sep;29(3):157-62. doi: 10.1097/01.npt.0000282248.15911.38.
PubMed 16398948Lambercy O, Dovat L, Yun H, Wee SK, Kuah CW, Chua KS, Gassert R, Milner TE, Teo CL, Burdet E. Effects of a robot-assisted training of grasp and pronation/supination in chronic stroke: a pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011 Nov 16;8:63. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-8-63.
PubMed 22087842Marquez-Chin C, Popovic MR. Functional electrical stimulation therapy for restoration of motor function after spinal cord injury and stroke: a review. Biomed Eng Online. 2020 May 24;19(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s12938-020-00773-4.
PubMed 32448143Ciancibello J, King K, Meghrazi MA, Padmanaban S, Levy T, Ramdeo R, Straka M, Bouton C. Closed-loop neuromuscular electrical stimulation using feedforward-feedback control and textile electrodes to regulate grasp force in quadriplegia. Bioelectron Med. 2019 Nov 1;5:19. doi: 10.1186/s42234-019-0034-y. eCollection 2019.
PubMed 32232108Prochazka A, Gauthier M, Wieler M, Kenwell Z. The bionic glove: an electrical stimulator garment that provides controlled grasp and hand opening in quadriplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 Jun;78(6):608-14. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(97)90426-3.
PubMed 9196468
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Aug 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Improving Grasp Function in People With Sensorimotor Impairments by Combining Electrical Stimulation With a Robotic Hand Orthosis
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05976087
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SENSIBLE-EXO / 1-010428
- Conditions
- Stroke, Spinal Cord Injuries, Traumatic Brain Injury
- Keywords
- sensorimotor, TENS, FES, exoskeleton, wearable robotics
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Andrea CimolatoUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jul 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2030 (estimated)
- First posted
- 4 Aug 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Hand motor and sensory impairments resulting from neurological disorders or injuries affect more than 50 million individuals worldwide. Conditions such as stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) can cause long-term hand impairments, greatly impacting daily activities and social integration. Since traditional physiotherapy has limited effectiveness in rehabilitation, assistive devices helping in performing in daily activities have emerged as a necessary solution. Soft exoskeletons offer advantages as they are more comfortable and adaptable for the user, but they often struggle to generate sufficient force. On the other hand, electrical stimulation garments, like e-sleeves, show promise by stimulating nerves and muscles in the forearm. However, achieving precise and stable movement control remains challenging due to difficulties in electrode placement for targeted stimulation. Furthermore, none of the currently available devices are capable of artificially restoring lost sensation in users' hands, limiting their ability to manipulate with fragile objects.
Recognizing these limitations, our study proposes a solution that combines a standard hand soft exoskeleton with: (i) electrical stimulation to the fingers' flexor and extensor muscles to generate artificial muscle contractions synchronized with the exoskeleton motion, compensating for the lack of gripping force, and (ii) electrical stimulation to the nerves to artificially restore the lost sensation of touch, enabling users to receive feedback on the force they are applying when interacting with the environment. The investigators refer to this proposed combination as Sensible-Exo.
To achieve this goal, our project aims to evaluate the functional improvements in assistive and rehabilitative scenarios using SensoExo in comparison to use only the exoskeleton or having no support at all. The exoskeleton will be coupled with an electrical stimulating sleeve capable of delivering non-invasive electrical stimulation in the form of Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS). A glove with embedded force and bending sensors will be used to modulate the electrical stimulation. Additionally, apart from studying the enhancement of functional tasks, the investigators will explore improvements in body perception, representation, and multi-sensory integration. Indeed, the investigators also aim at identifying the way patients perceive their body by means of ad-hoc virtual reality assessments that has been developed. Before each assessment patient will perform some predefined movement in virtual reality to familiarize with it and increase embodiment.
During the study, participants will perform a range of tasks based on their residual abilities, including motor tasks (e.g., grab and release, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Hand Function Test, grip force regulation test, virtual egg test), cognitive tasks (dual tasks), and assessments of body representation and perception. Some of these tasks will be conducted in Virtual Reality environments, both with and without active stimulation.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | Experimental | Device: SensoExo |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Impairment of the motor and sensory functions of the hand in chronic stage
- The subject should have good proximal arm function (i.e. good shoulder abduction and elevation)
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Cognitive and communication deficits impairment
- Prior or current psychological diseases such as borderline, schizophrenia, Depression or Maniac Depression
- Major comprehension and memory deficits
- Pregnancy
- Epilepsy
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| SensoExocombination of sensory feedback and the use of soft exoskeleton | Device | Experimental group |
Primary outcome
Change in Range of Motion with electrical stimulation and without no electrical stimulation
Time frame: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after
Range of motion will be measured and compared among conditions
Change in the area with tactile feedback in the hand with electrical stimulation and with no electrical stimulation
Time frame: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after
Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament Test will be used to assess the residual tactile feedback
Change in functional tasks performance with sensory feedback and without sensory feedback quantified by the number of successful grasp and release tasks
Time frame: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after
Number of successful transportation of objects over an obstacle
Change between functional tasks with sensory feedback and with no sensory feedback in number of virtual egg successful grasping
Time frame: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after
Number of successful transportations of fragile objects over an obstacle
Change between functional tasks with sensory feedback and with no sensory feedback in grasping force
Time frame: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after
Grasping forces will be assessed during functional performance of the subjects
Change between tasks with sensory feedback and with no sensory feedback in arm joints kinemtics
Time frame: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after
Joint kinematics measurements will be measured with motion capture systems during functional performance of the subjects
6 secondary outcomes
Change in experienced physical, mental, and social effects
Time frame: up one week before first session and up one week after last session
Change in Proprioceptive drift between different conditions
Time frame: up one week before first session and up one week after last session
Change in Telescoping measures between different conditions
Time frame: up one week before first session and up one week after last session
Change from baseline performance between tasks accomplished with sensory feedback and with no sensory feedback in Embodiment
Time frame: up one week before first session and up one week after last session
Measures of self-body representation
Time frame: up one week before first session; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up one week after last session
Measures of body-space representation
Time frame: up one week before first session; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up one week after last session
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Aug 2025.
- Background: PubMed 3178450Dannenbaum RM, Dykes RW. Sensory loss in the hand after sensory stroke: therapeutic rationale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988 Oct;69(10):833-9.
- Background: PubMed 8503750Carey LM, Matyas TA, Oke LE. Sensory loss in stroke patients: effective training of tactile and proprioceptive discrimination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Jun;74(6):602-11. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(93)90158-7.
- Background: PubMed 12477697Finnerup NB, Johannesen IL, Fuglsang-Frederiksen A, Bach FW, Jensen TS. Sensory function in spinal cord injury patients with and without central pain. Brain. 2003 Jan;126(Pt 1):57-70. doi: 10.1093/brain/awg007.
- Background: PubMed 15341032Fujimoto ST, Longhi L, Saatman KE, Conte V, Stocchetti N, McIntosh TK. Motor and cognitive function evaluation following experimental traumatic brain injury. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004 Jul;28(4):365-78. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.06.002.
- Background: PubMed 8343879Dannenbaum RM, Jones LA. The assessment and treatment of patients who have sensory loss following cortical lesions. J Hand Ther. 1993 Apr-Jun;6(2):130-8. doi: 10.1016/s0894-1130(12)80294-8.
- Background: PubMed 12907818Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJ. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003 Sep;34(9):2181-6. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000087172.16305.CD. Epub 2003 Aug 7.
- Background: PubMed 2698395Wade DT. Measuring arm impairment and disability after stroke. Int Disabil Stud. 1989 Apr-Jun;11(2):89-92. doi: 10.3109/03790798909166398.
- Background: PubMed 1622304Fuhrer MJ, Rintala DH, Hart KA, Clearman R, Young ME. Relationship of life satisfaction to impairment, disability, and handicap among persons with spinal cord injury living in the community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992 Jun;73(6):552-7.
- Background: PubMed 10798305Noreau L, Fougeyrollas P. Long-term consequences of spinal cord injury on social participation: the occurrence of handicap situations. Disabil Rehabil. 2000 Mar 10;22(4):170-80. doi: 10.1080/096382800296863.
- Background: PubMed 32552422Butzer T, Lambercy O, Arata J, Gassert R. Fully Wearable Actuated Soft Exoskeleton for Grasping Assistance in Everyday Activities. Soft Robot. 2021 Apr;8(2):128-143. doi: 10.1089/soro.2019.0135. Epub 2020 Jun 18.
- Background: PubMed 16398948Beekhuizen KS. New perspectives on improving upper extremity function after spinal cord injury. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2005 Sep;29(3):157-62. doi: 10.1097/01.npt.0000282248.15911.38.
- Background: PubMed 22087842Lambercy O, Dovat L, Yun H, Wee SK, Kuah CW, Chua KS, Gassert R, Milner TE, Teo CL, Burdet E. Effects of a robot-assisted training of grasp and pronation/supination in chronic stroke: a pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011 Nov 16;8:63. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-8-63.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Stroke
Recruiting
Delay AvoIding Primary Evaluation for ThRombectomy of Acute StrokE Patients With Large Vessel OCclusion in the Angiography SuiTe
Stroke, Acute
RecruitingPhase 4
Xeomin® and Gait Related Mobility After Stroke
Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
Implementing Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in a Rehabilitation Setting
Aphasia, Stroke
Not yet recruiting
EEG Feedback-Based Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Post-Stroke Dysphagia
Ischemic Stroke, Post-stroke Dysphagia
RecruitingObservational study
Development and Validation of Risk Prediction Models for Stroke and Cognitive Impairment in Moyamoya Disease and Moyamoya Syndrome
Moyamoya Disease, Moyamoya Syndrome
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Stanisa Raspopovic, PhD principal investigator
ETH Zurich
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing SensoExo in people with Stroke and Spinal Cord Injuries, run by Andrea Cimolato at 1 site in Switzerland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Aug 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in Range of Motion with electrical stimulation and without no electrical stimulation (time frame: up to one month before; thorugh study completition (average 1 month); up to one month after). The study lists 6 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05976087, which also lists 15 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Aug 2025.