Neurocognitive robot-assisted rehabilitation of hand function: a randomized control trial on motor recovery in subacute stroke.
Hand
Haptics
Neurorehabilitation
Robotics
Stroke
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 08 2020
24 08 2020
Historique:
received:
02
04
2020
accepted:
11
08
2020
entrez:
25
8
2020
pubmed:
25
8
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hand function is often impaired after stroke, strongly affecting the ability to perform daily activities. Upper limb robotic devices have been developed to complement rehabilitation therapy offered to persons who suffered a stroke, but they rarely focus on the training of hand sensorimotor function. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate whether robot-assisted therapy of hand function following a neurocognitive approach (i.e., combining motor training with somatosensory and cognitive tasks) produces an equivalent decrease in upper limb motor impairment compared to dose-matched conventional neurocognitive therapy, when embedded in the rehabilitation program of inpatients in the subacute stage after stroke. A parallel-group, randomized controlled trial was conducted on subjects with subacute stroke receiving either conventional or robot-assisted neurocognitive hand therapy using a haptic device. Therapy was provided for 15, 45-min sessions over four weeks, nested within the standard therapy program. Primary outcome was the change from baseline in the upper extremity part of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-UE) after the intervention, which was compared between groups using equivalence testing. Secondary outcome measures included upper limb motor, sensory and cognitive assessments, delivered therapy dose, as well as questionnaires on user technology acceptance. Thirty-three participants with stroke were enrolled. 14 subjects in the robot-assisted and 13 subjects in the conventional therapy group completed the study. At the end of intervention, week 8 and week 32, the robot-assisted/conventional therapy group improved by 7.14/6.85, 7.79/7.31, and 8.64/8.08 points on the FMA-UE, respectively, establishing that motor recovery in the robot-assisted group is non-inferior to that in the control group. Neurocognitive robot-assisted therapy of hand function allows for a non-inferior motor recovery compared to conventional dose-matched neurocognitive therapy when performed during inpatient rehabilitation in the subacute stage. This allows the early familiarization of subjects with stroke to the use of such technologies, as a first step towards minimal therapist supervision in the clinic, or directly at home after hospital discharge, to help increase the dose of hand therapy for persons with stroke. EUDAMED database (CIV-13-02-009921), clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02096445). Registered 26 March 2014 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02096445.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Hand function is often impaired after stroke, strongly affecting the ability to perform daily activities. Upper limb robotic devices have been developed to complement rehabilitation therapy offered to persons who suffered a stroke, but they rarely focus on the training of hand sensorimotor function. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate whether robot-assisted therapy of hand function following a neurocognitive approach (i.e., combining motor training with somatosensory and cognitive tasks) produces an equivalent decrease in upper limb motor impairment compared to dose-matched conventional neurocognitive therapy, when embedded in the rehabilitation program of inpatients in the subacute stage after stroke.
METHODS
A parallel-group, randomized controlled trial was conducted on subjects with subacute stroke receiving either conventional or robot-assisted neurocognitive hand therapy using a haptic device. Therapy was provided for 15, 45-min sessions over four weeks, nested within the standard therapy program. Primary outcome was the change from baseline in the upper extremity part of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-UE) after the intervention, which was compared between groups using equivalence testing. Secondary outcome measures included upper limb motor, sensory and cognitive assessments, delivered therapy dose, as well as questionnaires on user technology acceptance.
RESULTS
Thirty-three participants with stroke were enrolled. 14 subjects in the robot-assisted and 13 subjects in the conventional therapy group completed the study. At the end of intervention, week 8 and week 32, the robot-assisted/conventional therapy group improved by 7.14/6.85, 7.79/7.31, and 8.64/8.08 points on the FMA-UE, respectively, establishing that motor recovery in the robot-assisted group is non-inferior to that in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
Neurocognitive robot-assisted therapy of hand function allows for a non-inferior motor recovery compared to conventional dose-matched neurocognitive therapy when performed during inpatient rehabilitation in the subacute stage. This allows the early familiarization of subjects with stroke to the use of such technologies, as a first step towards minimal therapist supervision in the clinic, or directly at home after hospital discharge, to help increase the dose of hand therapy for persons with stroke.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
EUDAMED database (CIV-13-02-009921), clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02096445). Registered 26 March 2014 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02096445.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32831097
doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00746-7
pii: 10.1186/s12984-020-00746-7
pmc: PMC7444058
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02096445']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
115Références
J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98
pubmed: 1202204
Neurology. 1973 Jun;23(6):658-64
pubmed: 4736313
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006 Aug-Sep;43(5):631-42
pubmed: 17123204
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jun;23(5):435-40
pubmed: 19261767
J Alzheimers Dis. 2016 May 31;53(3):1107-14
pubmed: 27258421
Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2007 Jun;9(3):221-8
pubmed: 17601386
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31
pubmed: 1135616
Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 1;8(1):2091
pubmed: 29391492
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2001;15(3):229-37
pubmed: 11944745
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Oct;90(10):1692-8
pubmed: 19801058
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Jun;96(6):981-90
pubmed: 25461822
J Hand Ther. 2016 Jan-Mar;29(1):51-7; quiz 57
pubmed: 26847320
Am J Occup Ther. 2017 May/Jun;71(3):7103190070p1-7103190070p9
pubmed: 28422633
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Aug 2;15(1):72
pubmed: 30068372
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Jan 09;11:3
pubmed: 24401110
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Apr 25;12:42
pubmed: 25906983
J Phys Ther Sci. 2017 Apr;29(4):665-672
pubmed: 28533607
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):445-58
pubmed: 21674393
Clin Rehabil. 2017 Mar;31(3):351-360
pubmed: 27056250
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019 May;90(5):498-506
pubmed: 30770457
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Nov 15;11:154
pubmed: 25399249
Neurology. 2000 Dec 12;55(11):1621-6
pubmed: 11113214
Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(26):1-113, iii-iv
pubmed: 20515600
Am J Occup Ther. 2015 Jul-Aug;69(4):6904210020p1-8
pubmed: 26114456
N Engl J Med. 2010 May 13;362(19):1772-83
pubmed: 20400552
Lancet. 2019 Jul 6;394(10192):51-62
pubmed: 31128926
IEEE Trans Haptics. 2014 Apr-Jun;7(2):140-9
pubmed: 24968378
Clin Rehabil. 2013 Jan;27(1):75-81
pubmed: 22801472
J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Feb;26(2):192-6
pubmed: 20857339
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Feb;31(2):107-121
pubmed: 27597165
J Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Sep;27(9):2787-91
pubmed: 26504294
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Nov;90(11):887-94
pubmed: 21952215
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 07;(11):CD006876
pubmed: 26559225
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Jul;84(7):968-72
pubmed: 12881818
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Nov;91(11 Suppl 3):S242-54
pubmed: 23080040
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Mar;98(3):456-462
pubmed: 27519928
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Aug;31(8):769-780
pubmed: 28803535
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):355-66
pubmed: 21674388
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Feb;13(2):159-66
pubmed: 24382580
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 May;25(4):304-13
pubmed: 21350049
Brain Inj. 2009 Apr;23(4):263-77
pubmed: 19277922
Phys Ther. 2010 Apr;90(4):493-504
pubmed: 20185616
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016 Feb;52(1):81-9
pubmed: 26220327
Clin Rehabil. 2006 Feb;20(2):160-72
pubmed: 16541937
Stroke. 1989 Jul;20(7):864-70
pubmed: 2749846
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 04;9(2):e87987
pubmed: 24505342
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2010 Oct;18(5):551-9
pubmed: 20378482
Am J Occup Ther. 1985 Jun;39(6):386-91
pubmed: 3160243
Phys Ther. 2008 May;88(5):652-63
pubmed: 18326055
Clin Rehabil. 2012 Aug;26(8):696-704
pubmed: 22261813
Exp Brain Res. 2012 Jul;220(2):179-89
pubmed: 22648204
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011 Nov 16;8:63
pubmed: 22087842
Stroke. 2003 Dec;34(12):2861-5
pubmed: 14615613
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007 Sep;15(3):356-66
pubmed: 17894268
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2007 Jan-Feb;14(1):1-12
pubmed: 17311785
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017 Mar;25(3):297-305
pubmed: 27214905
Clin Rehabil. 2012 Dec;26(12):1096-104
pubmed: 22649162
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019 Jul;33(7):523-537
pubmed: 31131743