Robot-Assisted Training for Upper Limb in Stroke (ROBOTAS): An Observational, Multicenter Study to Identify Determinants of Efficacy.
exoskeleton
rehabilitation
robot-assisted therapy
stroke
upper limp therapy
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Nov 2021
11 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
15
10
2021
revised:
05
11
2021
accepted:
09
11
2021
entrez:
27
11
2021
pubmed:
28
11
2021
medline:
28
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The loss of arm function is a common and disabling outcome after stroke. Robot-assisted upper limb (UL) training may improve outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of robot-assisted training using end-effector and exoskeleton robots on UL function following a stroke in real-life clinical practice. A total of 105 patients affected by a first-ever supratentorial stroke were enrolled in 18 neurorehabilitation centers and treated with electromechanically assisted arm training as an add-on to conventional therapy. Both interventions provided either an exoskeleton or an end-effector device (as per clinical practice) and consisted of 20 sessions (3/5 times per week; 6-8 weeks). Patients were assessed by validated UL scales at baseline (T0), post-treatment (T1), and at three-month follow-up (T2). The primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for the upper extremity (FMA-UE). FMA-UE improved at T1 by 6 points on average in the end-effector group and 11 points on average in the exoskeleton group ( robot-assisted training might help improve UL function in stroke patients as an add-on treatment in both subacute and chronic stages. Pragmatic and highmethodological studies are needed to confirm the showed effectiveness of the exoskeleton and end-effector devices.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The loss of arm function is a common and disabling outcome after stroke. Robot-assisted upper limb (UL) training may improve outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of robot-assisted training using end-effector and exoskeleton robots on UL function following a stroke in real-life clinical practice.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 105 patients affected by a first-ever supratentorial stroke were enrolled in 18 neurorehabilitation centers and treated with electromechanically assisted arm training as an add-on to conventional therapy. Both interventions provided either an exoskeleton or an end-effector device (as per clinical practice) and consisted of 20 sessions (3/5 times per week; 6-8 weeks). Patients were assessed by validated UL scales at baseline (T0), post-treatment (T1), and at three-month follow-up (T2). The primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for the upper extremity (FMA-UE).
RESULTS
RESULTS
FMA-UE improved at T1 by 6 points on average in the end-effector group and 11 points on average in the exoskeleton group (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
robot-assisted training might help improve UL function in stroke patients as an add-on treatment in both subacute and chronic stages. Pragmatic and highmethodological studies are needed to confirm the showed effectiveness of the exoskeleton and end-effector devices.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34830527
pii: jcm10225245
doi: 10.3390/jcm10225245
pmc: PMC8622640
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Ministero della Salute
ID : This project was partially funded by The Ministry of Health (Ricerca corrente).
Références
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014 Nov-Dec;28(9):819-27
pubmed: 24642382
Neurol Sci. 2017 Sep;38(9):1561-1569
pubmed: 28540536
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Apr 25;15(1):35
pubmed: 29695280
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2011 Oct;18 Suppl 1:599-610
pubmed: 22120029
Brain Struct Funct. 2015 Mar;220(2):1093-107
pubmed: 24415059
Lancet. 2019 Jul 6;394(10192):51-62
pubmed: 31128926
Phys Ther. 2012 Jun;92(6):791-8
pubmed: 22282773
Lancet Neurol. 2004 Sep;3(9):528-36
pubmed: 15324721
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020 Mar;17(3):223-233
pubmed: 32107946
NeuroRehabilitation. 2017;40(2):243-249
pubmed: 28222546
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2015;33(1):57-65
pubmed: 25420902
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2009 Apr;52(3):269-93
pubmed: 19398398
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2021 Apr;57(2):238-245
pubmed: 33491943
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Jun 30;17(1):83
pubmed: 32605587
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 03;9:CD006876
pubmed: 30175845
Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021 Mar 23;9:657846
pubmed: 33834025
Phys Ther. 2021 Apr 4;101(4):
pubmed: 33454787
Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2021 Sep 2;82(9):1-7
pubmed: 34601931
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Aug;94(8):1527-33
pubmed: 23529144
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2020 Jan;44(1):3-14
pubmed: 31834217
J Clin Neurosci. 2021 Oct;92:11-16
pubmed: 34509235
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2021 Jun;18(6):513-522
pubmed: 33960257
Front Neurol. 2019 Apr 24;10:412
pubmed: 31068898
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2021 Jun;57(3):460-471
pubmed: 33947828