Effect Of Sensory Motor Training Versus Resistance Training Among Individuals With Knee Osteoarthritis.

NCT07262931 | Not Yet Recruiting DMC

• 1 other identifier: 21657
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 52
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

This study aims to address this gap by comparing the effects of sensory-motor training versus resistance training on pain, balance and functional activities, specifically in patients with early-stage knee osteoarthritis. In Pakistan, Knee Osteoarthritis is a common condition that significantly impacts many individuals' quality of life. While research exists on various exercise interventions for knee osteoarthritis, there is limited focus on patients with Grade 1 and 2 osteoarthritis. Understanding the most effective training method for this group will provide valuable insights for developing targeted rehabilitation programs, ultimately improving patient outcomes and quality of life.

Conditions

Knee Osteoarthristis

Keywords

sensory motor training; resistance training; knee osteoarthritis; pain; balance; functional activities

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (2)

• Visual Analogue Scale (VAS - Pain Outcome)

  The Visual Analogue Scale is a simple, reliable tool used to quantify pain intensity on a 10 cm line ranging from "no pain" to "worst possible pain." Participants marked their pain level experienced in both knees over the past 24 hours. It allows sensitive detection of even small changes in perceived pain.

  8 weeks

• WOMAC Scale (Functional Activities Outcome)

  The WOMAC Index is a validated questionnaire designed to evaluate pain, stiffness, and physical function specifically in individuals with knee or hip osteoarthritis. It assesses daily functional limitations such as walking, stair climbing, and standing. Higher scores indicate greater impairment, making it useful for monitoring treatment-related improvements.

  8 weeks

Secondary Outcomes (1)

• Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test - Balance Outcome

  8 Weeks

Study Arms (2)

Sensory Motor Group

EXPERIMENTAL

Participants in the sensory-motor training group received 8-week program of exercise 2 times a week. It starts with a warm-up on stationary bicycle for 10 minutes, stretching exercises.

Other: Sensory motor training

Resistance training group

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

The individuals allocated to the resistance training received a same 8-weeks exercise program twice a week. Exercise began with the same warm-up on stationary bicycle for 10 minutes then traction was applied, Isometric hip flexion and leg extension, stretching exercises for lower limb, Quadriceps and hamstring strengthening using ankle weights were used with frequency twice a week. 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 30 to 40% of 1RM and low to moderate intensity loads were applied for 15 minutes bilaterally.

Other: Resistance Training

Interventions

Sensory motor training OTHER

7.8. Interventions i FITT Principle: F: 2 times a week I: maximum to minimum T: Group 1 SMT, Group 2 RT T: 40-50 min Individuals were assigned 1:1 to either sensory motor training or resistance training. ii Groups with sufficient details 1 Experimental: Group1: Participants in the sensory-motor training group received 8-week program of exercise 2 times a week. It starts with a warm-up on stationary bicycle for 10 minutes, stretching exercises. In this group the main focus was on agility exercises that includes a balance board, walking on different directions, crossing steps while walking backward and forward and walking on different surfaces. The duration for these exercises was 40-50 minutes per session.

Sensory Motor Group

Resistance Training OTHER

The individuals allocated to the resistance training received a same 8-weeks exercise program twice a week. Exercise began with the same warm-up on stationary bicycle for 10 minutes then traction was applied, Isometric hip flexion and leg extension, stretching exercises for lower limb, Quadriceps and hamstring strengthening using ankle weights were used with frequency twice a week. 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 30 to 40% of 1RM and low to moderate intensity loads were applied for 15 minutes bilaterally.

Resistance training group

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 40 Years - 60 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: No
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• Both males and females are included.
• Age group include 40-60 years.
• Not done any exercise for at least 3 months
• Tibiofemoral osteoarthritis
• Grade I and II osteoarthritis

You may not qualify if:

• Cardiorespiratory diseases.
• Uncontrolled diabetes and Hypertension.
• Using ambulatory devices.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Lahore University of Biological and Applied Sciences: lead

Study Sites (1)

Lahore UBAS

Lahore, Punjab Province, 54000, Pakistan

Location

Related Publications (2)

• Andriacchi TP, Favre J, Erhart-Hledik JC, Chu CR. A systems view of risk factors for knee osteoarthritis reveals insights into the pathogenesis of the disease. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015 Feb;43(2):376-87. doi: 10.1007/s10439-014-1117-2. Epub 2014 Sep 16.

  PMID: 25224078 BACKGROUND

• Gomiero AB, Kayo A, Abraao M, Peccin MS, Grande AJ, Trevisani VF. Sensory-motor training versus resistance training among patients with knee osteoarthritis: randomized single-blind controlled trial. Sao Paulo Med J. 2018 Jan-Feb;136(1):44-50. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2017.0174100917. Epub 2017 Dec 7.

  PMID: 29236934 BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain

Interventions

Resistance Training

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Osteoarthritis; Arthritis; Joint Diseases; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Rheumatic Diseases; Neurologic Manifestations; Signs and Symptoms; Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Exercise Therapy; Rehabilitation; Aftercare; Continuity of Patient Care; Patient Care; Therapeutics; Physical Therapy Modalities; Physical Conditioning, Human; Exercise; Motor Activity; Movement; Musculoskeletal Physiological Phenomena; Musculoskeletal and Neural Physiological Phenomena

Central Study Contacts

Muhammad Waqas Waheed, MS (Neuromuscular)

CONTACT

+923057570243; waqaswaheed612@gmail.com

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Masking Details: the outcome assessor remained blinded throughout the study, conducting assessments without knowledge of group allocation.
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: November 19, 2025
• First Posted: December 4, 2025
• Study Start: December 1, 2025
• Primary Completion (Estimated): June 1, 2026
• Study Completion (Estimated): June 1, 2026
• Last Updated: December 4, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-11

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

PA (1)