Robotic versus Conventional Overground Gait Training in Subacute Stroke Survivors: A Multicenter Controlled Clinical Trial.
end-effector
exoskeleton
gait
rehabilitation
robotics
stroke
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jan 2023
05 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
12
12
2022
revised:
25
12
2022
accepted:
29
12
2022
entrez:
21
1
2023
pubmed:
22
1
2023
medline:
22
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although stroke survivors can benefit from robotic gait rehabilitation, stationary robot-assisted gait training needs further investigation. In this paper, we investigated the efficacy of this approach (with an exoskeleton or an end-effector robot) in comparison to the conventional overground gait training in subacute stroke survivors. In a multicenter controlled clinical trial, 89 subacute stroke survivors conducted twenty sessions of robot-assisted gait training (Robotic Group) or overground gait training (Control Group) in addition to the standard daily therapy. The robotic training was performed with an exoskeleton (RobotEXO-group) or an end-effector (RobotEND-group). Clinical outcomes were assessed before (T0) and after (T1) the treatment. The walking speed during the 10-Meter Walk Test (10 MWT) was the primary outcome of this study, and secondary outcomes were the 6-Minute Walk Test (6 MWT), Timed Up and Go test (TUG), and the modified Barthel Index (mBI). The main characteristics assessed in the Robotic and Control groups did not differ at baseline. A significant benefit was detected from the 10 MWT in the Robotic Group at the end of the study period (primary endpoint). A benefit was also observed from the following parameters: 6 MWT, TUG, and mBI. Moreover, patients belonging to the Robot Group outperformed the Control Group in gait speed, endurance, balance, and ADL. The RobotEND-group improved their walking speed more than the RobotEXO-group. The stationary robot-assisted training improved walking ability better than the conventional training in subacute stroke survivors. These results suggest that people with subacute stroke may benefit from Robot-Assisted training in potentiating gait speed and endurance. Our results also support that end-effector robots would be superior to exoskeleton robots for improving gait speed enhancement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although stroke survivors can benefit from robotic gait rehabilitation, stationary robot-assisted gait training needs further investigation. In this paper, we investigated the efficacy of this approach (with an exoskeleton or an end-effector robot) in comparison to the conventional overground gait training in subacute stroke survivors.
METHODS
METHODS
In a multicenter controlled clinical trial, 89 subacute stroke survivors conducted twenty sessions of robot-assisted gait training (Robotic Group) or overground gait training (Control Group) in addition to the standard daily therapy. The robotic training was performed with an exoskeleton (RobotEXO-group) or an end-effector (RobotEND-group). Clinical outcomes were assessed before (T0) and after (T1) the treatment. The walking speed during the 10-Meter Walk Test (10 MWT) was the primary outcome of this study, and secondary outcomes were the 6-Minute Walk Test (6 MWT), Timed Up and Go test (TUG), and the modified Barthel Index (mBI).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The main characteristics assessed in the Robotic and Control groups did not differ at baseline. A significant benefit was detected from the 10 MWT in the Robotic Group at the end of the study period (primary endpoint). A benefit was also observed from the following parameters: 6 MWT, TUG, and mBI. Moreover, patients belonging to the Robot Group outperformed the Control Group in gait speed, endurance, balance, and ADL. The RobotEND-group improved their walking speed more than the RobotEXO-group.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The stationary robot-assisted training improved walking ability better than the conventional training in subacute stroke survivors. These results suggest that people with subacute stroke may benefit from Robot-Assisted training in potentiating gait speed and endurance. Our results also support that end-effector robots would be superior to exoskeleton robots for improving gait speed enhancement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36675371
pii: jcm12020439
doi: 10.3390/jcm12020439
pmc: PMC9861649
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Ministero della Salute
ID : Ricerca Corrente
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(8):703-9
pubmed: 2760661
Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Nov 03;57(11):
pubmed: 34833418
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Nov-Dec;22(6):649-60
pubmed: 18971380
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2008;26(1):16-22
pubmed: 18511867
Int J Stroke. 2014 Jul;9(5):652-7
pubmed: 23231528
J Clin Neurosci. 2018 Feb;48:11-17
pubmed: 29208476
Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2012 Dec;14(6):531-40
pubmed: 22865294
Brain Sci. 2021 Jan 14;11(1):
pubmed: 33466749
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012 Mar;48(1):111-21
pubmed: 22543557
Stroke. 2016 Jun;47(6):e98-e169
pubmed: 27145936
Neurol Sci. 2016 Apr;37(4):503-14
pubmed: 26781943
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Oct;24(8):722-9
pubmed: 20460494
Lancet. 2011 May 14;377(9778):1693-702
pubmed: 21571152
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jul 04;19(13):
pubmed: 35805845
J Rehabil Med. 2008 Jan;40(1):23-7
pubmed: 18176733
Phys Ther. 1984 Jan;64(1):35-40
pubmed: 6691052
Stroke. 2007 Feb;38(2):349-54
pubmed: 17204680
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2008 Mar;32(1):8-13
pubmed: 18463550
J Psychosom Res. 2014 Nov;77(5):380-4
pubmed: 25218164
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2020 Nov;63(6):518-534
pubmed: 32229177
N Engl J Med. 2005 Apr 21;352(16):1677-84
pubmed: 15843670
Front Neurol. 2021 Jul 06;12:661815
pubmed: 34295298
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013 Nov;22(8):e426-34
pubmed: 23721615
Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(2):129-34
pubmed: 24754638
Ann Biomed Eng. 2015 May;43(5):1260-9
pubmed: 25724733
J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2016 Nov 29;3:2055668316676785
pubmed: 31186917
Behav Neurol. 2018 Feb 20;2018:2892065
pubmed: 29675114
NeuroRehabilitation. 2022;51(4):595-608
pubmed: 36502342
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Nov-Dec;22(6):672-5
pubmed: 18971382
J Phys Ther Sci. 2013 Oct;25(10):1223-5
pubmed: 24259762
J Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Jul;27(7):2175-7
pubmed: 26311949
Neurology. 2012 Sep 25;79(13 Suppl 1):S213-20
pubmed: 23008401
Phys Ther. 2002 Jan;82(1):25-34
pubmed: 11784275
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Feb 5;18(1):26
pubmed: 33546733
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 22;10:CD006185
pubmed: 33091160
Int J Rehabil Res. 2022 Jun 1;45(2):189-194
pubmed: 35131979
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2019 Dec;55(6):710-721
pubmed: 30723189
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Feb;86(2):190-6
pubmed: 15706542
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Oct;88(10):1314-9
pubmed: 17908575
Stroke. 1995 Jun;26(6):982-9
pubmed: 7762050
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jan;23(1):5-13
pubmed: 19109447
Eur Neurol. 2019;81(3-4):103-111
pubmed: 31167193
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 04;9(2):e87987
pubmed: 24505342
Neurology. 2014 Jan 7;82(1):77-9
pubmed: 24306005
J Phys Ther Sci. 2014 Dec;26(12):1949-53
pubmed: 25540505
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2001;15(3):229-37
pubmed: 11944745