Balance Rehabilitation through Robot-Assisted Gait Training in Post-Stroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
balance
gait
rehabilitation
robotics
stroke
Journal
Brain sciences
ISSN: 2076-3425
Titre abrégé: Brain Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101598646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jan 2023
03 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
01
12
2022
revised:
21
12
2022
accepted:
29
12
2022
entrez:
21
1
2023
pubmed:
22
1
2023
medline:
22
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Balance impairment is a common disability in post-stroke survivors, leading to reduced mobility and increased fall risk. Robotic gait training (RAGT) is largely used, along with traditional training. There is, however, no strong evidence about RAGT superiority, especially on balance. This study aims to determine RAGT efficacy on balance of post-stroke survivors. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PeDRO databases were investigated. Randomized clinical trials evaluating RAGT efficacy on post-stroke survivor balance with Berg Balance Scale (BBS) or Timed Up and Go test (TUG) were searched. Meta-regression analyses were performed, considering weekly sessions, single-session duration, and robotic device used. A total of 18 trials have been included. BBS pre-post treatment mean difference is higher in RAGT-treated patients, with a pMD of 2.17 (95% CI 0.79; 3.55). TUG pre-post mean difference is in favor of RAGT, but not statistically, with a pMD of -0.62 (95%CI - 3.66; 2.43). Meta-regression analyses showed no relevant association, except for TUG and treatment duration (β = -1.019, 95% CI - 1.827; -0.210, RAGT efficacy is equal to traditional therapy, while the combination of the two seems to lead to better outcomes than each individually performed. Robot-assisted balance training should be the focus of experimentation in the following years, given the great results in the first available trials. Given the massive heterogeneity of included patients, trials with more strict inclusion criteria (especially time from stroke) must be performed to finally define if and when RAGT is superior to traditional therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Balance impairment is a common disability in post-stroke survivors, leading to reduced mobility and increased fall risk. Robotic gait training (RAGT) is largely used, along with traditional training. There is, however, no strong evidence about RAGT superiority, especially on balance. This study aims to determine RAGT efficacy on balance of post-stroke survivors.
METHODS
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PeDRO databases were investigated. Randomized clinical trials evaluating RAGT efficacy on post-stroke survivor balance with Berg Balance Scale (BBS) or Timed Up and Go test (TUG) were searched. Meta-regression analyses were performed, considering weekly sessions, single-session duration, and robotic device used.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 18 trials have been included. BBS pre-post treatment mean difference is higher in RAGT-treated patients, with a pMD of 2.17 (95% CI 0.79; 3.55). TUG pre-post mean difference is in favor of RAGT, but not statistically, with a pMD of -0.62 (95%CI - 3.66; 2.43). Meta-regression analyses showed no relevant association, except for TUG and treatment duration (β = -1.019, 95% CI - 1.827; -0.210,
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
RAGT efficacy is equal to traditional therapy, while the combination of the two seems to lead to better outcomes than each individually performed. Robot-assisted balance training should be the focus of experimentation in the following years, given the great results in the first available trials. Given the massive heterogeneity of included patients, trials with more strict inclusion criteria (especially time from stroke) must be performed to finally define if and when RAGT is superior to traditional therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36672074
pii: brainsci13010092
doi: 10.3390/brainsci13010092
pmc: PMC9856764
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
NeuroRehabilitation. 2021;49(4):565-572
pubmed: 34806627
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015 Mar;10(2):141-8
pubmed: 24611590
BMC Geriatr. 2013 Oct 09;13:105
pubmed: 24106864
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Jul 29;16(1):99
pubmed: 31358017
Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2013 Jun;15(6):331
pubmed: 23591673
Gait Posture. 2018 Jun;63:208-220
pubmed: 29775908
Brain Sci. 2022 May 31;12(6):
pubmed: 35741599
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019 Sep;62(5):313-320
pubmed: 31028900
NeuroRehabilitation. 2020;47(4):463-470
pubmed: 33164953
Biomed Res Int. 2021 Aug 29;2021:5820304
pubmed: 34497851
J Rehabil Med. 2021 Feb 17;53(2):jrm00154
pubmed: 33585943
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2015 Jul;23(4):636-42
pubmed: 25850089
Int J Rehabil Res. 2015 Dec;38(4):338-43
pubmed: 26288120
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021 May;22(5):1073-1080
pubmed: 33639116
J Physiother. 2020 Oct;66(4):225-235
pubmed: 33069609
Int J Rehabil Res. 2020 Jun;43(2):159-166
pubmed: 32282572
Int J Nurs Stud. 2019 Jul;95:7-18
pubmed: 31002951
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2020 Jun;28(6):1481-1487
pubmed: 32305932
Behav Neurol. 2017;2017:3731802
pubmed: 28659660
NeuroRehabilitation. 2018;43(2):227-235
pubmed: 30040760
Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2021;55(1):91-96
pubmed: 33314016
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 27;10(1):12461
pubmed: 32719420
Clin Rehabil. 2019 Mar;33(3):516-523
pubmed: 30326747
J Adv Nurs. 2021 Aug;77(8):3255-3273
pubmed: 33675076
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012 Sep;48(3):455-66
pubmed: 22522435
Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998 Apr-May;38(3):189-92
pubmed: 9637946
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2020 Feb;11(1):3-25
pubmed: 31788969
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 May 6;18(1):76
pubmed: 33957937
J Vis Exp. 2018 Mar 8;(133):
pubmed: 29578520
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2020 Jun;56(3):265-271
pubmed: 32214062
Front Neurol. 2020 Jun 17;11:494
pubmed: 32625162
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 15;18(14):
pubmed: 34299999
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2018 Jun;32(6-7):543-556
pubmed: 29676956
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Jan 29;18(1):19
pubmed: 33514393
NeuroRehabilitation. 2019;45(2):201-212
pubmed: 31498139
Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2015 Aug 07;11:437-50
pubmed: 26300647
J Physiother. 2013 Jun;59(2):93-9
pubmed: 23663794
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;1000:131-151
pubmed: 29098620
Behav Neurol. 2018 Feb 20;2018:2892065
pubmed: 29675114
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022 Jan 28;19(1):12
pubmed: 35090517
Semin Neurol. 2018 Apr;38(2):208-211
pubmed: 29791947
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Dec 3;100(48):e27974
pubmed: 35049203
Exp Neurol. 2021 Jan;335:113518
pubmed: 33144066
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009 Jun 12;6:18
pubmed: 19523207
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2022 Sep;29(6):423-429
pubmed: 34169808
Clin Rehabil. 2021 Jun;35(6):882-893
pubmed: 33356519
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2021 Feb;57(1):4-12
pubmed: 32891079
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Feb 5;18(1):26
pubmed: 33546733
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016 Feb;52(1):81-9
pubmed: 26220327
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2018 Sep;61(5):339-344
pubmed: 29958963
Front Neurosci. 2019 Oct 24;13:1143
pubmed: 31708735
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 May;99(5):834-842.e4
pubmed: 29453980
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 28;15(2):e0229707
pubmed: 32109255
J Healthc Eng. 2021 Dec 20;2021:4710044
pubmed: 34966524
NeuroRehabilitation. 2016 Apr 6;38(4):343-9
pubmed: 27061162
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Feb 1;18(1):22
pubmed: 33526065
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2018 Jul;161:191-195
pubmed: 29852961
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jan;23(1):5-13
pubmed: 19109447
Neural Plast. 2017;2017:7876507
pubmed: 29375915
Disabil Rehabil. 2020 Jun;42(12):1650-1666
pubmed: 30668170
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 04;9(2):e87987
pubmed: 24505342
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2019 Apr;17(4):520-547
pubmed: 30973526
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2017;35(5):527-536
pubmed: 28800341
Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Aug 15;64(4):344-352
pubmed: 31453532
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 Aug;29(8):104886
pubmed: 32689628
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020 Sep-Oct;34(5 Suppl. 3):11-44. Technology in Medicine
pubmed: 33386032
J Neural Transm Suppl. 2002;(63):59-73
pubmed: 12597609
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:7309272
pubmed: 28053988
J Neural Eng. 2021 Jun 04;18(4):
pubmed: 33752175
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018 Dec;54(6):827-836
pubmed: 30507899
J Stroke. 2013 Sep;15(3):174-81
pubmed: 24396811
J Rehabil Med. 2020 Sep 8;52(9):jrm00097
pubmed: 32778902
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2003 May-Jun;12(3):119-26
pubmed: 17903915
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 May;99(5):1011-1022.e1
pubmed: 29357280