Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 3:29 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-26 @ 2:10 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT07234305
Status:
RECRUITING
Last Update Posted:
2025-11-18
First Post:
2025-11-14
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Shock Wave Therapy Versus Conventional Physical Therapy for Partial- Thickness Forearm Burn Scars
Sponsor:
MTI University
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Shock Wave Therapy Versus Conventional Physical Therapy for Partial- Thickness Forearm Burn Scars
Status:
RECRUITING
Status Verified Date:
2025-11
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
Burn injuries can lead to significant physical and psychological challenges, particularly when they result in scarring. Burn scars can lead to a variety of complications that significantly impact a patient's quality of life1.
Physical complications often include restricted range of motion and contractures, which can hinder mobility and daily activities, especially if the scars are located near joints2. Additionally, psychosocial effects such as anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal may arise due to the visible nature of scars and the stigma associated with them3.
Functional complications can also manifest, affecting the skin's ability to regulate temperature and moisture, increasing susceptibility to infections, and causing discomfort or pain 4. In some cases, burn scars may develop into hypertrophic scars or keloids, leading to further aesthetic concerns and potential need for medical interventions5.
Among the various types of burns, partial thickness burns are particularly concerning due to their potential for hypertrophic scarring and functional limitations6. Effective treatment strategies are essential to manage these scars, promote healing, and improve the quality of life for affected individuals7.
Physical complications often include restricted range of motion and contractures, which can hinder mobility and daily activities, especially if the scars are located near joints2. Additionally, psychosocial effects such as anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal may arise due to the visible nature of scars and the stigma associated with them3.
Functional complications can also manifest, affecting the skin's ability to regulate temperature and moisture, increasing susceptibility to infections, and causing discomfort or pain 4. In some cases, burn scars may develop into hypertrophic scars or keloids, leading to further aesthetic concerns and potential need for medical interventions5.
Among the various types of burns, partial thickness burns are particularly concerning due to their potential for hypertrophic scarring and functional limitations6. Effective treatment strategies are essential to manage these scars, promote healing, and improve the quality of life for affected individuals7.
Detailed Description:
Ultrasonography has emerged as a valuable tool in the assessment and monitoring of scar tissue characteristics, allowing for non-invasive evaluation of tissue composition, vascularity, and changes over time. This imaging modality provides critical insights into the healing process, facilitating more informed therapeutic decisions8.
Shock wave therapy has gained attention in recent years as a novel treatment option for scar management. It utilizes acoustic waves to stimulate tissue regeneration, enhance blood flow, and promote collagen remodeling, potentially leading to improved scar quality9.
In contrast, traditional physical therapy remains a cornerstone of rehabilitation post-burn, focusing on restoring function, reducing pain, and improving mobility through various modalities, including stretching, strengthening, and manual therapy techniques 10.
This research addresses the limited exploration of the comparative effectiveness of shock wave therapy versus traditional physical therapy in treating partial thickness burn scars on the forearm. By utilizing a prospective randomized clinical trial design, the study aims to provide substantial evidence regarding the efficacy of these two treatment modalities. The primary focus is to evaluate the impact of both therapies on scar characteristics, specifically examining changes in echogenicity, vascularity, and overall morphology through ultrasonography before and after treatment. Additionally, the study seeks to compare patient-reported outcomes related to scar appearance, pain, and functional abilities between the two groups, ultimately contributing to the development of improved treatment protocols for burn scars.
Shock wave therapy has gained attention in recent years as a novel treatment option for scar management. It utilizes acoustic waves to stimulate tissue regeneration, enhance blood flow, and promote collagen remodeling, potentially leading to improved scar quality9.
In contrast, traditional physical therapy remains a cornerstone of rehabilitation post-burn, focusing on restoring function, reducing pain, and improving mobility through various modalities, including stretching, strengthening, and manual therapy techniques 10.
This research addresses the limited exploration of the comparative effectiveness of shock wave therapy versus traditional physical therapy in treating partial thickness burn scars on the forearm. By utilizing a prospective randomized clinical trial design, the study aims to provide substantial evidence regarding the efficacy of these two treatment modalities. The primary focus is to evaluate the impact of both therapies on scar characteristics, specifically examining changes in echogenicity, vascularity, and overall morphology through ultrasonography before and after treatment. Additionally, the study seeks to compare patient-reported outcomes related to scar appearance, pain, and functional abilities between the two groups, ultimately contributing to the development of improved treatment protocols for burn scars.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: