Age is negatively associated with upper limb recovery after conventional but not robotic rehabilitation in patients with stroke: a secondary analysis of a randomized-controlled trial.
Predictors
Rehabilitation
Robotics
Stroke
Upper extremity
Journal
Journal of neurology
ISSN: 1432-1459
Titre abrégé: J Neurol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0423161
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
27
04
2020
accepted:
05
08
2020
revised:
03
08
2020
pubmed:
28
8
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
27
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is consistent evidence that robotic rehabilitation is at least as effective as conventional physiotherapy for upper extremity (UE) recovery after stroke, suggesting to focus research on which subgroups of patients may better respond to either intervention. In this study, we evaluated which baseline variables are associated with the response after the two approaches. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized-controlled trial comparing robotic and conventional treatment for the UE. After the assigned intervention, changes of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment UE score by ≥ 5 points classified patients as responders to treatment. Variables associated with the response were identified in a univariate analysis. Then, variables independently associated with recovery were investigated, in the whole group, and the two groups separately. A sample of 190 patients was evaluated after the treatment; 121 were responders. Age, baseline impairment, and neglect were significantly associated with worse response to the treatment. Age was the only independently associated variable (OR 0.967, p = 0.023). Considering separately the two interventions, age remained negatively associated with recovery (OR 0.948, p = 0.013) in the conventional group, while none of the variables previously identified were significantly associated with the response to treatment in the robotic group. We found that, in our sample, age is significantly associated with the outcome after conventional but not robotic UE rehabilitation. Possible explanations may include an enhanced positive attitude of the older patients towards technological training and reduced age-associated fatigue provided by robotic-assisted exercise. The possibly higher challenge proposed by robotic training, unbiased by the negative stereotypes concerning very old patients' expectations and chances to recover, may also explain our findings. NCT02879279.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is consistent evidence that robotic rehabilitation is at least as effective as conventional physiotherapy for upper extremity (UE) recovery after stroke, suggesting to focus research on which subgroups of patients may better respond to either intervention. In this study, we evaluated which baseline variables are associated with the response after the two approaches.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a secondary analysis of a randomized-controlled trial comparing robotic and conventional treatment for the UE. After the assigned intervention, changes of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment UE score by ≥ 5 points classified patients as responders to treatment. Variables associated with the response were identified in a univariate analysis. Then, variables independently associated with recovery were investigated, in the whole group, and the two groups separately.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A sample of 190 patients was evaluated after the treatment; 121 were responders. Age, baseline impairment, and neglect were significantly associated with worse response to the treatment. Age was the only independently associated variable (OR 0.967, p = 0.023). Considering separately the two interventions, age remained negatively associated with recovery (OR 0.948, p = 0.013) in the conventional group, while none of the variables previously identified were significantly associated with the response to treatment in the robotic group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We found that, in our sample, age is significantly associated with the outcome after conventional but not robotic UE rehabilitation. Possible explanations may include an enhanced positive attitude of the older patients towards technological training and reduced age-associated fatigue provided by robotic-assisted exercise. The possibly higher challenge proposed by robotic training, unbiased by the negative stereotypes concerning very old patients' expectations and chances to recover, may also explain our findings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
BACKGROUND
NCT02879279.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32844309
doi: 10.1007/s00415-020-10143-8
pii: 10.1007/s00415-020-10143-8
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02879279']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
474-483Références
Murray CJL, Vos T, Lozano R et al (2012) Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380:2197–2223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61689-4
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61689-4
pubmed: 23245608
Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS (1995) Recovery of walking function in stroke patients: the copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76:27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80038-7
doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80038-7
pubmed: 7811170
Nakayama H, Jørgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS (1994) Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75:394–398
doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90161-9
Feigin VL, Forouzanfar MH, Krishnamurthi R et al (2014) Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990–2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 383:245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61953-4
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61953-4
pubmed: 24449944
pmcid: 4181600
Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJH (2003) Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 34:2181–2186
doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000087172.16305.CD
Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A (2009) Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 8:741–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4
doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4
pubmed: 19608100
Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC et al (2014) Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010820.pub2
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010820.pub2
pubmed: 25387001
pmcid: 6469541
Krebs HI, Palazzolo JJ, Dipietro L et al (2003) Rehabilitation robotics: performance-based progressive robot-assisted therapy. Auton Robots 15:7–20. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024494031121
doi: 10.1023/A:1024494031121
Kwakkel G (2009) Towards integrative neurorehabilitation science. Physiother Res Int 14:137–146
doi: 10.1002/pri.446
Prange GB, Jannink MJA, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM et al (2006) Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev 43:171–183
doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2005.04.0076
Colombo R, Pisano F, Micera S et al (2005) Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 13:311–324. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2005.848352
doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2005.848352
pubmed: 16200755
Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T et al (2018) Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD006876. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006876.pub5
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006876.pub5
pubmed: 30175845
Rodgers H, Bosomworth H, Krebs HI et al (2019) Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 394:51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31055-4
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31055-4
pubmed: 31128926
pmcid: 6620612
Aprile I, Germanotta M, Cruciani A et al (2020) Upper limb robotic rehabilitation after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther 44:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0000000000000295
doi: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000295
pubmed: 31834217
Jakob I, Kollreider A, Germanotta M et al (2018) Robotic and sensor technology for upper limb rehabilitation. PM&R 10:S189–S197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.07.011
doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.07.011
Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC et al (2002) Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83:952–959. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2001.33101
doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.33101
pubmed: 12098155
Stinear CM, Smith MC, Byblow WD (2019) Prediction tools for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 50:3314–3322
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025696
Nijland RHM, Van Wegen EEH, Harmeling-Van Der Wel BC, Kwakkel G (2010) Presence of finger extension and shoulder abduction within 72 hours after stroke predicts functional recovery: early prediction of functional outcome after stroke: the EPOS cohort study. Stroke 41:745–750. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.572065
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.572065
pubmed: 20167916
Stinear CM, Byblow WD, Ackerley SJ et al (2017) PREP2: a biomarker-based algorithm for predicting upper limb function after stroke. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 4:811–820. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.488
doi: 10.1002/acn3.488
pubmed: 29159193
pmcid: 5682112
Byblow WD, Stinear CM, Barber PA et al (2015) Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann Neurol 78:848–859. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24472
doi: 10.1002/ana.24472
pubmed: 26150318
Feng W, Wang J, Chhatbar PY et al (2015) Corticospinal tract lesion load: an imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes. Ann Neurol 78:860–870. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24510
doi: 10.1002/ana.24510
pubmed: 26289123
pmcid: 4715758
Winters C, van Wegen EEH, Daffertshofer A, Kwakkel G (2015) Generalizability of the proportional recovery model for the upper extremity after an ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 29:614–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968314562115
doi: 10.1177/1545968314562115
pubmed: 25505223
Buch ER, Rizk S, Nicolo P et al (2016) Predicting motor improvement after stroke with clinical assessment and diffusion tensor imaging. Neurology 86:1924–1925. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000002675
doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002675
pubmed: 27164664
pmcid: 4873682
Stinear CM, Byblow WD, Ackerley SJ et al (2017) Proportional motor recovery after stroke. Stroke 48:795–798. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016020
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016020
pubmed: 28143920
Hawe RL, Scott SH, Dukelow SP (2019) Taking proportional out of stroke recovery. Stroke 50:204–211. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.118.023006
doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.118.023006
Hope TMH, Friston K, Price CJ et al (2019) Recovery after stroke: not so proportional after all? Brain 142:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awy302
doi: 10.1093/brain/awy302
pubmed: 30535098
Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I et al (1975) The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 7:13–31
pubmed: 1135616
Woytowicz EJ, Rietschel JC, Goodman RN et al (2017) Determining levels of upper extremity movement impairment by applying a cluster analysis to the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 98:456–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.06.023
doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.06.023
pubmed: 27519928
Zarahn E, Alon L, Ryan SL et al (2011) Prediction of motor recovery using initial impairment and fMRI 48 h poststroke. Cereb Cortex 21:2712–2721. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr047
doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr047
pubmed: 21527788
pmcid: 3209795
Puig J, Blasco G, Daunis-I-Estadella J et al (2013) Decreased corticospinal tract fractional anisotropy predicts long-term motor outcome after stroke. Stroke 44:2016–2018. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000382
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000382
pubmed: 23652266
Page SJ, Fulk GD, Boyne P (2012) Clinically important differences for the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer Scale in people with minimal to moderate impairment due to chronic stroke. Phys Ther 92:791–798. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20110009
doi: 10.2522/ptj.20110009
pubmed: 22282773
Lee YY, Hsieh YW, Wu CY et al (2015) Proximal Fugl-Meyer assessment scores predict clinically important upper limb improvement after 3 stroke rehabilitative interventions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 96:2137–2144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2015.07.019
doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.07.019
pubmed: 26260019
Lang TA, Lang T, Secic M (2006) How to report statistics in medicine: annotated guidelines for authors, editors, and reviewers. ACP Press, Sydney
Mehrholz J (2019) Is electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training effective for improving arm function in people who have had a stroke? A Cochrane review summary with commentary. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-900000000-98325
doi: 10.1097/00002060-900000000-98325
pubmed: 30640290
Habegger S, Wiest R, Weder BJ et al (2018) Relating acute lesion loads to chronic outcome in ischemic stroke-an exploratory comparison of mismatch patterns and predictive modeling. Front Neurol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00737
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00737
pubmed: 30254601
pmcid: 6141854
Coupar F, Pollock A, Rowe P et al (2012) Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 26:291–313
doi: 10.1177/0269215511420305
Kwah LK, Harvey LA, Diong J, Herbert RD (2013) Models containing age and NIHSS predict recovery of ambulation and upper limb function six months after stroke: an observational study. J Physiother 59:189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1836-9553(13)70183-8
doi: 10.1016/S1836-9553(13)70183-8
pubmed: 23896334
Hsieh YW, Lin KC, Wu CY et al (2014) Predicting clinically significant changes in motor and functional outcomes after robot-assisted stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 95:316–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.09.018
doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.09.018
pubmed: 24113336
Franceschini M, Goffredo M, Pournajaf S et al (2018) Predictors of activities of daily living outcomes after upper limb robot-assisted therapy in subacute stroke patients. PLoS ONE 13:e0193235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193235
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193235
pubmed: 29466440
pmcid: 5821374
Leem MJ, Kim GS, Kim KH et al (2019) Predictors of functional and motor outcomes following upper limb robot-assisted therapy after stroke. Int J Rehabil Res 42:223–228. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000349
doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000349
pubmed: 30932930
Persson HC, Opheim A, Lundgren-Nilsson Å et al (2016) Upper extremity recovery after ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke: part of the SALGOT study. Eur Stroke J 1:310–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396987316672809
doi: 10.1177/2396987316672809
pubmed: 31008293
pmcid: 6301248
Morone G, Masiero S, Coiro P et al (2018) Clinical features of patients who might benefit more from walking robotic training. Restor Neurol Neurosci 36:293–299. https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-170799
doi: 10.3233/RNN-170799
pubmed: 29526861
Joyce K, Loe M (2010) A sociological approach to ageing, technology and health. Sociol Heal Illn 32:171–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01219.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01219.x
Shibata T, Wada K (2011) Robot therapy: a new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly—a mini-review. Gerontology 57:378–386
doi: 10.1159/000319015
Mannheim I, Schwartz E, Xi W et al (2019) Inclusion of older adults in the research and design of digital technology. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193718
doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193718
pubmed: 31581632
pmcid: 6801827
Betts LR, Hill R, Gardner SE (2019) “There’s not enough knowledge out there”: examining older adults’ perceptions of digital technology use and digital inclusion classes. J Appl Gerontol 38:1147–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817737621
doi: 10.1177/0733464817737621
pubmed: 29165038
Joyce K, Mamo L (2006) Graying the Cyborg: new directions in feminist analyses of aging, science, and technology. Age matters: re-aligning feminist thinking. Routledge, New York, pp 99–121
Kvitek SDB, Shaver BJ, Blood H, Shepard KF (1986) Age bias: physical therapists and older patients. J Gerontol 41:706–709. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/41.6.706
doi: 10.1093/geronj/41.6.706
Blackwood J, Sweet C (2017) The influence of ageism, experience, and relationships with older adults on physical therapy students’ perception of geriatrics. Gerontol Geriatr Educ 38:219–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2015.1079709
doi: 10.1080/02701960.2015.1079709
pubmed: 26252864
Dobrowolska B, Jędrzejkiewicz B, Pilewska-Kozak A et al (2019) Age discrimination in healthcare institutions perceived by seniors and students. Nurs Ethics 26:443–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733017718392
doi: 10.1177/0969733017718392
pubmed: 28745574
Bingham D (2019) Older workforces: re-imagining later life learning. Routledge, New York
doi: 10.4324/9781315598789
Longobucco Y, Benedetti C, Tagliaferri S et al (2019) Proactive interception and care of frailty and multimorbidity in older persons: the experience of the European innovation partnership on active and healthy ageing and the response of parma local health trust and lab through European projects. Acta Biomed 90:364–374. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v90i2.8419
doi: 10.23750/abm.v90i2.8419
pubmed: 31125023
Kristensen HK, Tistad M, Von Koch L, Ytterberg C (2016) The importance of patient involvement in stroke rehabilitation. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157149
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157149
pubmed: 27936079
pmcid: 5147909
Banz R, Bolliger M, Colombo G et al (2008) Computerized visual feedback: an adjunct to robotic-assisted gait training. Phys Ther 88:1135–1145. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20070203
doi: 10.2522/ptj.20070203
pubmed: 18772279
Babaiasl M, Mahdioun SH, Jaryani P, Yazdani M (2016) A review of technological and clinical aspects of robot-aided rehabilitation of upper-extremity after stroke. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 11:263–280. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.1002539
doi: 10.3109/17483107.2014.1002539
pubmed: 25600057
Ramirez-Fernandez C, Moran AL, Garcia-Canseco E (2015) Haptic feedback in motor hand virtual therapy increases precision and generates less mental workload. In: Proceedings of the 2015 9th international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare, Pervasive health 2015, pp 280–286
Masiero S, Poli P, Rosati G et al (2014) The value of robotic systems in stroke rehabilitation. Expert Rev Med Devices 11:187–198
doi: 10.1586/17434440.2014.882766
Lefeber N, Swinnen E, Kerckhofs E (2017) The immediate effects of robot-assistance on energy consumption and cardiorespiratory load during walking compared to walking without robot-assistance: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 12:657–671
doi: 10.1080/17483107.2016.1235620
Cecchi F, Pancani S, Antonioli D et al (2018) Predictors of recovering ambulation after hip fracture inpatient rehabilitation. BMC Geriatr. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0884-2
doi: 10.1186/s12877-018-0884-2
pubmed: 30170554
pmcid: 6117966
Padua L, Imbimbo I, Aprile I et al (2020) Cognitive reserve as a useful variable to address robotic or conventional upper limb rehabilitation treatment after stroke: a multicentre study of the Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi. Eur J Neurol 27:392–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.14090
doi: 10.1111/ene.14090
pubmed: 31536677
Wong AWK, Chen C, Baum MC et al (2019) Cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning as predictors of paid employment in people with stroke, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury. Am J Occup Ther. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2019.031203
doi: 10.5014/ajot.2019.031203
pubmed: 30915962
pmcid: 6436116