A randomized clinical control study on the efficacy of three-dimensional upper limb robotic exoskeleton training in chronic stroke.
Exoskeleton
Robotic biomarkers
Robotic rehabilitation training
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:
04 02 2022
04 02 2022
Historique:
received:
15
04
2021
accepted:
21
01
2022
entrez:
5
2
2022
pubmed:
6
2
2022
medline:
22
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although robotics assisted rehabilitation has proven to be effective in stroke rehabilitation, a limited functional improvements in Activities of Daily Life has been also observed after the administration of robotic training. To this aim in this study we compare the efficacy in terms of both clinical and functional outcomes of a robotic training performed with a multi-joint functional exoskeleton in goal-oriented exercises compared to a conventional physical therapy program, equally matched in terms of intensity and time. As a secondary goal of the study, it was assessed the capability of kinesiologic measurements-extracted by the exoskeleton robotic system-of predicting the rehabilitation outcomes using a set of robotic biomarkers collected at the baseline. A parallel-group randomized clinical trial was conducted within a group of 26 chronic post-stroke patients. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups receiving robotic or manual therapy. The primary outcome was the change in score on the upper extremity section of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) scale. As secondary outcome a specifically designed bimanual functional scale, Bimanual Activity Test (BAT), was used for upper limb functional evaluation. Two robotic performance indices were extracted with the purpose of monitoring the recovery process and investigating the interrelationship between pre-treatment robotic biomarkers and post-treatment clinical improvement in the robotic group. A significant clinical and functional improvements in both groups (p < 0.01) was reported. More in detail a significantly higher improvement of the robotic group was observed in the proximal portion of the FMA (p < 0.05) and in the reduction of time needed for accomplishing the tasks of the BAT (p < 0.01). The multilinear-regression analysis pointed out a significant correlation between robotic biomarkers at the baseline and change in FMA score (R Exoskeleton-based robotic upper limb treatment might lead to better functional outcomes, if compared to manual physical therapy. The extracted robotic performance could represent predictive indices of the recovery of the upper limb. These results are promising for their potential exploitation in implementing personalized robotic therapy. Clinical Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03319992 Unique Protocol ID: RH-UL-LEXOS-10. Registered 20.10.2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03319992.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although robotics assisted rehabilitation has proven to be effective in stroke rehabilitation, a limited functional improvements in Activities of Daily Life has been also observed after the administration of robotic training. To this aim in this study we compare the efficacy in terms of both clinical and functional outcomes of a robotic training performed with a multi-joint functional exoskeleton in goal-oriented exercises compared to a conventional physical therapy program, equally matched in terms of intensity and time. As a secondary goal of the study, it was assessed the capability of kinesiologic measurements-extracted by the exoskeleton robotic system-of predicting the rehabilitation outcomes using a set of robotic biomarkers collected at the baseline.
METHODS
A parallel-group randomized clinical trial was conducted within a group of 26 chronic post-stroke patients. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups receiving robotic or manual therapy. The primary outcome was the change in score on the upper extremity section of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) scale. As secondary outcome a specifically designed bimanual functional scale, Bimanual Activity Test (BAT), was used for upper limb functional evaluation. Two robotic performance indices were extracted with the purpose of monitoring the recovery process and investigating the interrelationship between pre-treatment robotic biomarkers and post-treatment clinical improvement in the robotic group.
RESULTS
A significant clinical and functional improvements in both groups (p < 0.01) was reported. More in detail a significantly higher improvement of the robotic group was observed in the proximal portion of the FMA (p < 0.05) and in the reduction of time needed for accomplishing the tasks of the BAT (p < 0.01). The multilinear-regression analysis pointed out a significant correlation between robotic biomarkers at the baseline and change in FMA score (R
CONCLUSION
Exoskeleton-based robotic upper limb treatment might lead to better functional outcomes, if compared to manual physical therapy. The extracted robotic performance could represent predictive indices of the recovery of the upper limb. These results are promising for their potential exploitation in implementing personalized robotic therapy. Clinical Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03319992 Unique Protocol ID: RH-UL-LEXOS-10. Registered 20.10.2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03319992.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35120546
doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-00991-y
pii: 10.1186/s12984-022-00991-y
pmc: PMC8817500
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03319992']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
14Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Stroke. 2017 Jul;12(5):539-548
pubmed: 28440112
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Mar 20;16(1):42
pubmed: 30894192
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013 Dec 19;10:112
pubmed: 24354476
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Feb;95(2):338-44
pubmed: 24161273
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Nov;91(11 Suppl 3):S232-41
pubmed: 23080039
Lancet. 2019 Jul 6;394(10192):51-62
pubmed: 31128926
Stroke Res Treat. 2013;2013:128641
pubmed: 23738231
Int J Stroke. 2017 Jul;12(5):480-493
pubmed: 28697711
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2018 Jan;32(1):73-83
pubmed: 29334831
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012 Apr 20;9:21
pubmed: 22520559
Stroke. 2015 Dec;46(12):3459-69
pubmed: 26542695
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2015 Nov;26(4):583-98
pubmed: 26522899
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Nov 26;12:105
pubmed: 26611144
Neurol Sci. 2017 Sep;38(9):1561-1569
pubmed: 28540536
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Oct 29;13(1):95
pubmed: 27794362
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2011;2011:5975512
pubmed: 22275708
Clin Orthop Surg. 2014 Mar;6(1):103-9
pubmed: 24605197
Stroke. 2014 Jan;45(1):200-4
pubmed: 24335224
J Phys Ther Sci. 2017 Apr;29(4):665-672
pubmed: 28533607
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012 Oct 04;9:72
pubmed: 23035968
Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 Feb 11;9:6
pubmed: 25717296
J Neurosci. 2002 Sep 15;22(18):8297-304
pubmed: 12223584
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 07;(11):CD006876
pubmed: 26559225
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Oct;16(10):826-836
pubmed: 28920888
Sci Rep. 2020 Feb 4;10(1):1806
pubmed: 32019981
Acta Myol. 2016 Dec;35(3):141-144
pubmed: 28484314
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2003 Dec;17(4):220-6
pubmed: 14677218
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Feb;13(2):159-66
pubmed: 24382580
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012 Jun 09;9:36
pubmed: 22681653
Stroke. 2012 Oct;43(10):2720-8
pubmed: 22871683
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Sep;27(7):602-12
pubmed: 23549521
Hum Mov Sci. 2010 Oct;29(5):853-70
pubmed: 19926154
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017 Nov;25(11):2196-2203
pubmed: 28613178