Treadmill-Based Locomotor Training With Robotic Pelvic Assist and Visual Feedback: A Feasibility Study.
Journal
Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT
ISSN: 1557-0584
Titre abrégé: J Neurol Phys Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101193365
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
entrez:
10
6
2020
pubmed:
10
6
2020
medline:
26
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Gait asymmetries are common after stroke, and often persist despite conventional rehabilitation. Robots provide training at a greater practice frequency than conventional approaches. However, prior studies of have found the transfer of learned skills outside of the device to be inadequate. The tethered pelvic assist device (TPAD) promotes weight shifting, yet allows users to independently navigate spatiotemporal aspects of gait. The purpose of this study was to evaluate feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a 5-day intervention combining TPAD training with visual feedback and task-specific overground training to promote improved force and stance symmetry in individuals after stroke. After baseline assessments, 11 participants chronically after stroke received 1 hour of practice for 5 consecutive days. Training sessions included visual feedback during TPAD treadmill training followed by overground gait training. Safety, perceived exertion, and adherence were recorded as measures of feasibility. Load and stance symmetry were reassessed after the intervention (posttraining) and again 1 week later. No adverse events were reported. Mean (SD) perceived exertion (3.61 (0.23)) was low and did not significantly change throughout the intervention. Overall adherence was 96.4%. Load asymmetry was not significantly reduced on the treadmill from baseline to posttraining (P = 0.075). Overground stance symmetry significantly improved on posttraining (F = 8.498, P = 0.002), but was not sustained at follow-up. (See the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A311, which summarizes the study background, methods, and results.) DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:: Results demonstrate this combined interventional approach was feasible and improved stance symmetry overground, yet further work should consider increasing training intensity and/or duration to induce gains lasting through follow-up.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Gait asymmetries are common after stroke, and often persist despite conventional rehabilitation. Robots provide training at a greater practice frequency than conventional approaches. However, prior studies of have found the transfer of learned skills outside of the device to be inadequate. The tethered pelvic assist device (TPAD) promotes weight shifting, yet allows users to independently navigate spatiotemporal aspects of gait. The purpose of this study was to evaluate feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a 5-day intervention combining TPAD training with visual feedback and task-specific overground training to promote improved force and stance symmetry in individuals after stroke.
METHODS
After baseline assessments, 11 participants chronically after stroke received 1 hour of practice for 5 consecutive days. Training sessions included visual feedback during TPAD treadmill training followed by overground gait training. Safety, perceived exertion, and adherence were recorded as measures of feasibility. Load and stance symmetry were reassessed after the intervention (posttraining) and again 1 week later.
RESULTS
No adverse events were reported. Mean (SD) perceived exertion (3.61 (0.23)) was low and did not significantly change throughout the intervention. Overall adherence was 96.4%. Load asymmetry was not significantly reduced on the treadmill from baseline to posttraining (P = 0.075). Overground stance symmetry significantly improved on posttraining (F = 8.498, P = 0.002), but was not sustained at follow-up. (See the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A311, which summarizes the study background, methods, and results.) DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:: Results demonstrate this combined interventional approach was feasible and improved stance symmetry overground, yet further work should consider increasing training intensity and/or duration to induce gains lasting through follow-up.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32516301
doi: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000317
pii: 01253086-202007000-00006
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03203291']
Types de publication
Controlled Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
205-213Références
Balaban B, Tok F. Gait disturbances in patients with stroke. PM R. 2014;6(7):635–642. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.12.017.
Bowden MG, Balasubramanian CK, Neptune RR, Kautz SA. Anterior-posterior ground reaction forces as a measure of paretic leg contribution in hemiparetic walking. Stroke. 2006;37(3):872–876. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000204063.75779.8d.
Patterson K, Parafianowicz I, Danells CJ, et al. Gait asymmetry in community-ambulating stroke survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(2):304–310. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.08.142.
Duncan PW, Sullivan KJ, Behrman AL, et al. Body-weight–supported treadmill rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(21):2026–2036. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1010790.
Hendrickson J, Patterson K, Inness EL, McIlroy WE, Mansfield A. Relationship between asymmetry of quiet standing balance control and walking post-stroke. Gait Posture. 2014;39(1):177–181. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.06.022.
Patterson K, Gage WH, Brooks D, Black SE, McIlroy WE. Changes in gait symmetry and velocity after stroke: a cross-sectional study from weeks to years after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(9):783–790. doi:10.1177/1545968310372091.
Chen G, Patten C, Kothari DH, Zajac FE. Gait differences between individuals with post-stroke hemiparesis and non-disabled controls at matched speeds. Gait Posture. 2005;22(1):51–56. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.06.009.
Ellis RG, Howard KC, Kram R. The metabolic and mechanical costs of step time asymmetry in walking. Proceedings Biol Sci. 2013;280(1756):20122784. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2784.
Brandstater ME, de Bruin H, Gowland C, Clark BM. Hemiplegic gait: analysis of temporal variables. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1983;64(12):583–587.
Helm EE, Reisman DS. The split-belt walking paradigm: exploring motor learning and spatiotemporal asymmetry poststroke. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2015;26(4):703–713. doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2015.06.010.
Hsiao H, Awad LN, Palmer JA, Higginson JS, Binder-Macleod SA. Contribution of paretic and ponparetic limb peak propulsive forces to changes in walking speed in Individuals poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30(8):743–752. doi:10.1177/1545968315624780.
Balasubramanian CK, Bowden MG, Neptune RR, Kautz SA. Relationship between step length asymmetry and walking performance in subjects with chronic hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(1):43–49. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.004.
Huang VS, Krakauer JW. Robotic neurorehabilitation: a computational motor learning perspective. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;6:5. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-6-5.
Lang CE, Macdonald JR, Reisman DS, et al. Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(10):1692–1698. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.04.005.
Cha J, Heng C, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Roy RR, Edgerton VR, De Leon RD. Locomotor ability in spinal rats Is dependent on the amount of activity imposed on the hindlimbs during treadmill training. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24(6):1000–1012. doi:10.1089/neu.2006.0233.
Writing Group Members;Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;133(4):e38–e360.
Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2016;47(6):e98–e169. doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000098.
Hesse S, Konrad M, Uhlenbrock D. Treadmill walking with partial body weight support versus floor walking in hemiparetic subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(4):421–427. doi:10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90279-4.
Schwartz I, Meiner Z. Robotic-assisted gait training in neurological patients: who may benefit? Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43(5):1260–1269. doi:10.1007/s10439-015-1283-x.
Winstein CJ, Kay DB. Translating the science into practice: shaping rehabilitation practice to enhance recovery after brain damage. Prog Brain Res. 2015;218:331–360. doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.01.004.
Kleim JA, Jones TA. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51(1):S225–S239. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/018).
Lang CE, Lohse KR, Birkenmeier RL. Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015;28(6):549–555. doi:10.1097/WCO.0000000000000256.
Nudo RJ. Recovery after brain injury: mechanisms and principles. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:887. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00887.
Reisman DS, Wityk R, Silver K, Bastian AJ. Locomotor adaptation on a split-belt treadmill can improve walking symmetry post-stroke. Brain. 2007;130(7):1861–1872. doi:10.1093/brain/awm035.
Reisman DS, Bastian AJ, Morton SM. Neurophysiologic and rehabilitation insights from the split-belt and other locomotor adaptation paradigms. Phys Ther. 2010;90(2):187–195. doi:10.2522/ptj.20090073.
Bernstein NA. The Co-ordination and Regulation of Movements. 1st ed. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press; 1967.
Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2004;36(2):212–224. doi:10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224.
Lee TD, Swanson LR, Hall AL. What is repeated in a repetition? Effects of practice conditions on motor skill acquisition. Phys Ther. 1991;71(2):150–156.
Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016;23(5):1382–1414. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9.
Marchal-Crespo L, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Review of control strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;6:20. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-6-20.
Srivastava S, Kao PC, Kim SH, et al. Assist-as-needed robot-aided gait training improves walking function in individuals following stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2015;23(6):956–963. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2360822.
Hesse S. Treadmill training with partial body weight support after stroke: a review. NeuroRehabilitation. 2008;23(1):55–65.
Sans-Muntadas A, Duarte JE, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Robot-assisted motor training: assistance decreases exploration during reinforcement learning. Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014:3516–3520. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944381.
Emken JL, Benitez R, Sideris A, Bobrow JE, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Motor adaptation as a greedy optimization of error and effort. J Neurophysiol. 2007;97(6):3997–4006. doi:10.1152/jn.01095.2006.
Heuer H, Lüttgen J. Motor learning with fading and growing haptic guidance. Exp brain Res. 2014;232(7):2229–2242. doi:10.1007/s00221-014-3914-0.
Schmidt RA. Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: evidence and interpretations. In: Requin J, Stelmach GE, eds. Tutorials in Motor Neuroscience. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer; 1991:59–75. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-3626-6.
Sidaway B, Ahn S, Boldeau P, Griffin S, Noyes B, Pelletier K. A comparison of manual guidance and knowledge of results in the learning of a weight-bearing skill. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2008;32(1):32–38. doi:10.1097/NPT.0b013e318165948d.
Winstein CJ, Pohl PS, Lewthwaite R. Effects of physical guidance and knowledge of results on motor learning: support for the guidance hypothesis. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1994;65(4):316–323. doi:10.1080/02701367.1994.10607635.
Dobkin BH. A rehabilitation-internet-of-things in the home to augment motor skills and exercise training. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(3):217–227. doi:10.1177/1545968316680490.
Vashista V. A Cable-Driven Pelvic Robot: Human Gait Adaptation and Rehabilitation Studies [dissertation]. New York, NY: Columbia University; 2015.
Bishop L, Khan M, Martelli D, Quinn L, Stein J, Agrawal S. Exploration of two training paradigms using forced induced weight shifting with the tethered pelvic assist device to reduce asymmetry in individuals after stroke: case reports. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96(10, suppl 1):S135–S140. doi:10.1097/PHM.0000000000000779.
Lewek MD, Randall EP. Reliability of spatiotemporal asymmetry during overground walking for individuals following chronic stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2011;35(3):116–121. doi:10.1097/NPT.0b013e318227fe70.
Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, et al. Defining feasibility and pilot studies in preparation for randomised controlled trials: development of a conceptual framework. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0150205. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150205.
Rossetti HC, Lacritz LH, Cullum CM, Weiner MF. Normative data for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a population-based sample. Neurology. 2011;77(13):1272–1275. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e318230208a.
Toglia J, Fitzgerald KA, O'Dell MW, Mastrogiovanni AR, Lin CD. The Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in persons with mild subacute stroke: relationship to functional outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(5):792–798. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.12.034.
Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. Reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther. 1984;64(1):35–40.
Mehrholz J, Wagner K, Rutte K, Meiβner D, Pohl M. Predictive validity and responsiveness of the functional ambulation category in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(10):1314–1319. doi:10.1016/J.APMR.2007.06.764.
Duncan PW, Lai SM, Bode RK, Perera S, DeRosa J. Stroke Impact Scale-16: a brief assessment of physical function. Neurology. 2003;60(2):291–296.
Edwards B, O'Connell B. Internal consistency and validity of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0) and SIS-16 in an Australian sample. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(8):1127–1135.
Lai SM, Perera S, Duncan PW, Bode RK. Physical and social functioning after stroke: comparison of the Stroke Impact Scale and Short Form-36. Stroke. 2003;34(2):488–493. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000054162.94998.C0.
Borg E, Kaijser L. A comparison between three rating scales for perceived exertion and two different work tests. Scand J Med Sci Sport. 2006;16(1):57–69. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2005.00448.x.
Reisman DS, McLean H, Keller J, Danks KA, Bastian AJ. Repeated split-belt treadmill training improves poststroke step length asymmetry. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(5):460–468. doi:10.1177/1545968312474118.
Danks KA, Pohlig RT, Reisman DS. Combining fast-walking training and a step activity monitoring program to improve daily walking activity after stroke: a preliminary study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(9 suppl):S185–S193. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2016.01.039.
Awad LN, Palmer JA, Pohlig RT, Binder-Macleod SA, Reisman DS. Walking speed and step length asymmetry modify the energy cost of walking after stroke. Neurorehabilitation Neural Repair. 2015;29(5):416–423. doi:10.1177/1545968314552528.
Washabaugh EP, Kalyanaraman T, Adamczyk PG, Claflin ES, Krishnan C. Validity and repeatability of inertial measurement units for measuring gait parameters. Gait Posture. 2017;55:87–93. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.04.013.
Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. The Balance Scale: reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with an acute stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1995;27(1):27–36.
Helm EE, Pohlig RT, Kumar DS, Reisman DS. Practice structure and locomotor learning after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2019;43(2):85–93. doi:10.1097/NPT.0000000000000260.
Stein J, Bishop L, Stein DJ, Wong CK. Gait training with a robotic leg brace after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;93(11):987–994. doi:10.1097/PHM.0000000000000119.
Westlake KP, Patten C. Pilot study of Lokomat versus manual-assisted treadmill training for locomotor recovery post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;6:18. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-6-18.
Krakauer JW. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19(1):84–90.
Zeiler SR, Krakauer JW. The interaction between training and plasticity in the poststroke brain. Curr Opin Neurol. 2013;26(6):609–616. doi:10.1097/WCO.0000000000000025.
Kitago T, Krakauer JW. Motor learning principles for neurorehabilitation. Handb Clin Neurol. 2013;110:93–103. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-52901-5.00008-3.
Winstein CJ, Merians AS, Sullivan KJ. Motor learning after unilateral brain damage. Neuropsychologia. 1999;37(8):975–987. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00145-6.
Kaupp C, Pearcey GEP, Klarner T, et al. Rhythmic arm cycling training improves walking and neurophysiological integrity in chronic stroke: the arms can give legs a helping hand in rehabilitation. J Neurophysiol. 2018;119(3):1095–1112. doi:10.1152/jn.00570.2017.