Kinematic parameters obtained with the ArmeoSpring for upper-limb assessment after stroke: a reliability and learning effect study for guiding parameter use.
ArmeoSpring
Exoskeleton device
Hemiplegia
Learning
Psychometrics
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:
29 09 2020
29 09 2020
Historique:
received:
11
02
2020
accepted:
10
09
2020
entrez:
30
9
2020
pubmed:
1
10
2020
medline:
3
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
After stroke, kinematic measures obtained with non-robotic and robotic devices are highly recommended to precisely quantify the sensorimotor impairments of the upper-extremity and select the most relevant therapeutic strategies. Although the ArmeoSpring exoskeleton has demonstrated its effectiveness in stroke motor rehabilitation, its interest as an assessment tool has not been sufficiently documented. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of selected kinematic parameters obtained with the ArmeoSpring in post-stroke patients. This study involved 30 post-stroke patients (mean age = 54.5 ± 16.4 years; time post-stroke = 14.7 ± 26.7 weeks; Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer Score (UE-FMS) = 40.7 ± 14.5/66) who participated in 3 assessment sessions, each consisting of 10 repetitions of the 'horizontal catch' exercise. Five kinematic parameters (task and movement time, hand path ratio, peak velocity, number of peak velocity) and a global Score were computed from raw ArmeoSpring' data. Learning effect and retention were analyzed using a 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA, and reliability was investigated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC). We observed significant inter- and intra-session learning effects for most parameters except peak velocity. The measures performed in sessions 2 and 3 were significantly different from those of session 1. No additional significant difference was observed after the first 6 trials of each session and successful retention was also highlighted for all the parameters. Relative reliability was moderate to excellent for all the parameters, and MDC values expressed in percentage ranged from 42.6 to 102.8%. After a familiarization session, the ArmeoSpring can be used to reliably and sensitively assess motor impairment and intervention effects on motor learning processes after a stroke. Trial registration The study was approved by the local hospital ethics committee in September 2016 and was registered under number 05-0916.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
After stroke, kinematic measures obtained with non-robotic and robotic devices are highly recommended to precisely quantify the sensorimotor impairments of the upper-extremity and select the most relevant therapeutic strategies. Although the ArmeoSpring exoskeleton has demonstrated its effectiveness in stroke motor rehabilitation, its interest as an assessment tool has not been sufficiently documented. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of selected kinematic parameters obtained with the ArmeoSpring in post-stroke patients.
METHODS
This study involved 30 post-stroke patients (mean age = 54.5 ± 16.4 years; time post-stroke = 14.7 ± 26.7 weeks; Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer Score (UE-FMS) = 40.7 ± 14.5/66) who participated in 3 assessment sessions, each consisting of 10 repetitions of the 'horizontal catch' exercise. Five kinematic parameters (task and movement time, hand path ratio, peak velocity, number of peak velocity) and a global Score were computed from raw ArmeoSpring' data. Learning effect and retention were analyzed using a 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA, and reliability was investigated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC).
RESULTS
We observed significant inter- and intra-session learning effects for most parameters except peak velocity. The measures performed in sessions 2 and 3 were significantly different from those of session 1. No additional significant difference was observed after the first 6 trials of each session and successful retention was also highlighted for all the parameters. Relative reliability was moderate to excellent for all the parameters, and MDC values expressed in percentage ranged from 42.6 to 102.8%.
CONCLUSIONS
After a familiarization session, the ArmeoSpring can be used to reliably and sensitively assess motor impairment and intervention effects on motor learning processes after a stroke. Trial registration The study was approved by the local hospital ethics committee in September 2016 and was registered under number 05-0916.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32993695
doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00759-2
pii: 10.1186/s12984-020-00759-2
pmc: PMC7523068
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
130Références
Stroke. 2016 Jun;47(6):e98-e169
pubmed: 27145936
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Oct 5;15(1):89
pubmed: 30290806
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009 Nov-Dec;16(6):463-88
pubmed: 20139049
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 May 16;15(1):39
pubmed: 29769127
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Feb;31(2):133-146
pubmed: 27542986
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005 Sep-Oct;42(5):683-92
pubmed: 16586194
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2014 Nov;57(8):543-551
pubmed: 25261273
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Jan;24(1):62-9
pubmed: 19684304
Curr Opin Neurol. 2006 Feb;19(1):84-90
pubmed: 16415682
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014 Sep;22(5):1020-9
pubmed: 24760936
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Jun;24(5):486-92
pubmed: 20053950
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017 Aug 30;14(1):87
pubmed: 28854939
NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33(4):523-30
pubmed: 24037096
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012 Jun 09;9:37
pubmed: 22681720
Neurologia. 2013 Jun;28(5):261-7
pubmed: 22727271
Int J Stroke. 2019 Oct;14(8):783-791
pubmed: 31510885
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;59(10):1033-9
pubmed: 16980142
Cereb Cortex. 2013 Feb;23(2):305-14
pubmed: 22351647
J Neurosci. 2002 Sep 15;22(18):8297-304
pubmed: 12223584
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003 Nov-Dec;40(6):487-500
pubmed: 15077661
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:9346374
pubmed: 27517053
Stroke. 2019 Mar;50(3):718-727
pubmed: 30776997
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011 Jan 24;8:5
pubmed: 21261965
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Jan;25(1):71-80
pubmed: 20829411
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
Front Behav Neurosci. 2015 Apr 28;9:105
pubmed: 25972791
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Aug 12;12:66
pubmed: 26265327
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Aug;94(8):1527-33
pubmed: 23529144
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014 Jan;28(1):4-12
pubmed: 23911973
J Rehabil Med. 2014 Feb;46(2):117-25
pubmed: 24213596
J Appl Biomech. 2009 May;25(2):103-10
pubmed: 19483254
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Sep 12;11:137
pubmed: 25217124
J Hand Ther. 2013 Apr-Jun;26(2):104-14;quiz 115
pubmed: 22975740
J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Feb;19(1):231-40
pubmed: 15705040
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 Feb;29(2):174-82
pubmed: 24878589
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31
pubmed: 1135616
Gait Posture. 2009 Nov;30(4):464-8
pubmed: 19674900
Lancet. 2017 Feb 11;389(10069):641-654
pubmed: 27637676
Am J Occup Ther. 1999 Jul-Aug;53(4):333-44
pubmed: 10427675
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015 Jun 05;25(2):141-51
pubmed: 26110027
Phys Ther. 2008 May;88(5):652-63
pubmed: 18326055
J Rehabil Med. 2011 Feb;43(3):181-9
pubmed: 21305232
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000 Dec;81(12 Suppl 2):S15-20
pubmed: 11128900
Med Eng Phys. 2018 Mar;53:13-31
pubmed: 29361407
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2006 Sep;14(3):378-89
pubmed: 17009498
Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Feb 24;11:82
pubmed: 28286474