Effect on functional outcome of robotic assisted rehabilitation versus conventional rehabilitation in patients with complete spinal cord injury: a prospective comparative study.
Journal
Spinal cord
ISSN: 1476-5624
Titre abrégé: Spinal Cord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9609749
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Mar 2024
15 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
06
03
2023
accepted:
27
02
2024
revised:
30
01
2024
medline:
16
3
2024
pubmed:
16
3
2024
entrez:
16
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Prospective Comparative Study. This study aims to compare the functional outcomes of Robotic-assisted rehabilitation by Lokomat system Vs. Conventional rehabilitation in participants with Dorsolumbar complete spinal cord injury (SCI). University level teaching hospital in a hilly state of northern India. 15 participants with Dorsolumbar SCI with ASIA A neurology were allocated to robotic rehabilitation and 15 participants to conventional rehabilitation after an operative procedure. Pre-and Post-rehabilitation parameters were noted in terms of ASIA Neurology, Motor and sensory function scores, WISCI II score (Walking Index in SCI score), LEMS (Lower Extremity Motor Score), SCI M III score (Spinal Cord Independence Measure III score), AO Spine PROST (AO Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma), McGill QOL score (Mc Gill Quality of Life score), VAS score (Visual Analogue Scale) for pain and Modified Ashworth scale for spasticity in lower limbs. On comparing robotic group with conventional group there was a statistically significant improvement in Robotic-assisted rehabilitation group in terms of Motor score (p = 0.034), WISCI II score (p = 0.0001), SCIM III score (p = 0.0001), AO PROST score (p = 0.0001), Mc GILL QOL score (p = 0.0001), Max velocity (p = 0.0001) and Step length (p = 0.0001). Whereas LEMS score (p = 0.052), ASIA neurology (p = 0.264 (ASIA A); 1.000 (ASIA B); 0.053 (ASIA C)), VAS score (p = 0.099), Sensory score (p = 0.422) and Modified Ashworth scale for spasticity (p = 0.136) were not statically significant when comparing between two groups. Robot-assisted rehabilitation is superior than conventional rehabilitation in people living with SCI with AIS A neurology. Differences in the patient group, type of a lesion its and severity, duration from onset to initiation of rehabilitation, devices employed, administration of the therapies and regulation of interventions are likely the cause of variations in the findings seen in the literature for robotic assisted training. III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38491302
doi: 10.1038/s41393-024-00970-1
pii: 10.1038/s41393-024-00970-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to International Spinal Cord Society.
Références
Bishop L, Stein J, Wong CK. Robot-aided gait training in an individual with chronic spinal cord injury: a case study. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2012;36:138–43.
doi: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e3182624c87
pubmed: 22854804
Ditunno PL, Patrick M, Stineman M, Ditunno JF. Who wants to walk? Preferences for recovery after SCI: a longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Spinal Cord. 2008;46:500–6.
doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3102172
pubmed: 18209742
van Asbeck F, Post M, Pangalila R. An epidemiological description of spinal cord injuries in The Netherlands in 1994. Spinal Cord. 2000;38:420–4.
doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101003
pubmed: 10962602
Warren S, Moore M, Johnson MS. Traumatic head and spinal cord injuries in Alaska (1991-1993). Alsk Med. 1995;37:11–19.
Wyndaele M, Wyndaele J-J. Incidence, prevalence and epidemiology of spinal cord injury: what learns a worldwide literature survey? Spinal Cord. 2006;44:523–9.
doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101893
pubmed: 16389270
Calabrò RS, Cacciola A, Bertè F, Manuli A, Leo A, Bramanti A, et al. Robotic gait rehabilitation and substitution devices in neurological disorders: where are we now? Neurol Sci. 2016;37:503–14.
doi: 10.1007/s10072-016-2474-4
pubmed: 26781943
Waters RL, Adkins RH, Yakura JS, Sie I. Motor and sensory recovery following incomplete paraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:67–72.
doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90340-9
pubmed: 8291966
van Middendorp JJ, Hosman AJF, Pouw MH, Van de Meent H. ASIA impairment scale conversion in traumatic SCI: is it related with the ability to walk? A descriptive comparison with functional ambulation outcome measures in 273 patients. Spinal Cord. 2009;47:555–60.
doi: 10.1038/sc.2008.162
pubmed: 19104512
Ditunno JF, Scivoletto G, Patrick M, Biering-Sorensen F, Abel R, Marino R. Validation of the walking index for spinal cord injury in a US and European clinical population. Spinal Cord. 2008;46:181–8.
doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3102071
pubmed: 17502878
Piepmeier JM, Jenkins NR. Late neurological changes following traumatic spinal cord injury. J Neurosurg. 1988;69:399–402.
doi: 10.3171/jns.1988.69.3.0399
pubmed: 3404238
Behrman AL, Bowden MG, Nair PM. Neuroplasticity after spinal cord injury and training: an emerging paradigm shift in rehabilitation and walking recovery. Phys Ther. 2006;86:1406–25.
doi: 10.2522/ptj.20050212
pubmed: 17012645
Harness ET, Yozbatiran N, Cramer SC. Effects of intense exercise in chronic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2008;46:733–7.
doi: 10.1038/sc.2008.56
pubmed: 18521094
van Hedel HJA, Dietz V. Rehabilitation of locomotion after spinal cord injury. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2010;28:123–34.
pubmed: 20086289
Hubli M, Dietz V. The physiological basis of neurorehabilitation—locomotor training after spinal cord injury. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013;10:5.
doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-10-5
pubmed: 23336934
pmcid: 3584845
Dietz V. Locomotor activity in spinal man: significance of afferent input from joint and load receptors. Brain. 2002;125:2626–34.
doi: 10.1093/brain/awf273
pubmed: 12429590
Edgerton VR, Leon RD, Harkema SJ, Hodgson JA, London N, Reinkensmeyer DJ, et al. Retraining the injured spinal cord. J Physiol. 2001;533:15–22.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.0015b.x
pubmed: 11351008
pmcid: 2278598
Barbeau H, Nadeau S, Garneau C. Physical determinants, emerging concepts, and training approaches in gait of individuals with spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2006;23:571–85.
doi: 10.1089/neu.2006.23.571
pubmed: 16629638
Winchester P, McColl R, Querry R, Foreman N, Mosby J, Tansey K, et al. Changes in supraspinal activation patterns following robotic locomotor therapy in motor-incomplete spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005;19:313–24.
doi: 10.1177/1545968305281515
pubmed: 16263963
Swinnen E, Duerinck S, Baeyens J, Meeusen R, Kerckhofs E. Effectiveness of robot-assisted gait training in persons with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42:520–6.
doi: 10.2340/16501977-0538
pubmed: 20549155
Freivogel S, Schmalohr D, Mehrholz J. Improved walking ability and reduced therapeutic stress with an electromechanical gait device. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:734–9.
doi: 10.2340/16501977-0422
pubmed: 19774307
Alashram AR, Annino G, Padua E. Robot-assisted gait training in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review for the clinical effectiveness of Lokomat. J Clin Neurosci. 2021;91:260–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2021.07.019
pubmed: 34373038
Holanda LJ, Silva PMM, Amorim TC, Lacerda MO, Simão CR, Morya E. Robotic-assisted gait as a tool for rehabilitation of individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14:126.
doi: 10.1186/s12984-017-0338-7
pubmed: 29202845
pmcid: 5715997
Piira AM, Lannem AM, Sørensen M, Glott T, Knutsen R, Jørgensen L, et al. Robot-assisted locomotor training did not improve walking function in patients with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury: a randomized clinical trial. J Rehabil Med. 2019;51:385–9.
doi: 10.2340/16501977-2547
pubmed: 30895326
Shin JC, Kim JY, Park HK, Kim NY. Effect of robotic-assisted gait training in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury. Ann Rehabil Med. 2014;38:719.
doi: 10.5535/arm.2014.38.6.719
pubmed: 25566469
pmcid: 4280366
Khorasanizadeh M, Yousefifard M, Eskian M, Lu Y, Chalangari M, Harrop JS, et al. Neurological recovery following traumatic spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30:683–99.
doi: 10.3171/2018.10.SPINE18802
Alcobendas-Maestro M, Esclarín-Ruz A, Casado-López RM, Muñoz-González A, Pérez-Mateos G, González-Valdizán E, et al. Lokomat robotic-assisted versus overground training within 3 to 6 months of incomplete spinal cord lesion: randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:1058–63.
doi: 10.1177/1545968312448232
pubmed: 22699827
Mıdık M. Effects of robot-assisted gait training on lower extremity strength, functional independence, and walking function in men with incomplete traumatic spinal cord injury. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;66:54–59.
doi: 10.5606/tftrd.2020.3316
pubmed: 32318675
pmcid: 7171894
Yildirim MA, Öneş K, Gökşenoğlu G. Early term effects of robotic assisted gait training on ambulation and functional capacity in patients with spinal cord injury. Turk J Med Sci. 2019;49:838–43.
doi: 10.3906/sag-1809-7
pubmed: 31134784
pmcid: 7018313
Benito-Penalva J, Edwards DJ, Opisso E, Cortes M, Lopez-Blazquez R, Murillo N, et al. Gait training in human spinal cord injury using electromechanical systems: effect of device type and patient characteristics. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:404–12.
doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.028
pubmed: 22209475
Galen SS, Clarke CJ, Allan DB, Conway BA. A portable gait assessment tool to record temporal gait parameters in SCI. Med Eng Phys. 2011;33:626–32.
doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.01.003
pubmed: 21288759
Schwartz I, Sajina A, Neeb M, Fisher I, Katz-Luerer M, Meiner Z. Locomotor training using a robotic device in patients with subacute spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:1062–7.
doi: 10.1038/sc.2011.59
pubmed: 21625239