Development and validation of a sliding type continuous passive motion automation device for evaluation and rehabilitation of frozen shoulder: a pilot study.
Jewoo Lee, Sung-Sik Yun, Kyung Rok Oh and 4 others
PMID 40861008WHAT IT FOUND
In 12 patients with frozen shoulder, a new robotic device produced similar range of motion gains to manual therapy but faster external rotation recovery than heat alone.
It objectively measured joint stiffness, though the intervention group had twice the session frequency.
Key findings
01The robotic device resulted in faster recovery of external rotation range of motion compared to the heat-only control group.
02Passive stiffness in the shoulder significantly decreased in the intervention group, particularly for abduction and external rotation.
03There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the robotic device and manual therapy by a physical therapist.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was very small (12 patients), limiting statistical power and generalizability. The intervention group received twice as many sessions per week as the control groups, which may have contributed to the observed benefits independently of the device itself. The study was not blinded; participants knew their group assignment, and assessments were performed by those involved in the treatment or device operation. The device requires normal elbow mobility to approximate the natural arc of shoulder movement, making it unsuitable for patients with concurrent elbow dysfunction. Some patients reported discomfort due to the wrist brace used to attach the arm to the device.
Declared interests
The work was funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea and the National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude the robotic device is superior to manual therapy. The study found no significant difference between the two, and the robotic group received twice the frequency of treatment compared to the manual therapy group, which confounds any comparison of efficacy per session.