Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Training Versus Enhanced Upper Extremity Therapy on Upper and Lower Extremity for Stroke Survivors: A Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Robot-assisted neuro-rehabilitation therapy plays a central role in upper extremity recovery of stroke. However, the efficacy of robotic training on the upper extremity is not yet well defined, and little attention has been devoted to its potential effect on the lower extremity. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted training and therapist-mediated enhanced upper extremity therapy on the upper and lower extremities.

Methods

A randomized clinical trial involving 172 stroke survivors was conducted in China. All participants received either robot-assisted training or enhanced upper extremity therapy for 3 weeks. Fugl-Meyer assessment upper extremity subscale (FMA-UE), Fugl-Meyer assessment lower extremity subscale (FMA-LE), and Modified Barthel Index were administered at baseline, mid-treatment (1 week after treatment start), and post-treatment.

Results

Participants in the robot-assisted training group showed a significant improvement in the hemiplegia extremity, which was non-inferior to the enhanced upper extremity therapy group in FMA-UE (p < 0.05), while suggesting greater motor recovery of lower extremity in FMA-LE (p < 0.05) compared with the enhanced upper extremity therapy group. A marked increase in Modified Barthel Index was observed within groups; however, no significant difference was found between groups.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted training is non-inferior but not better in reducing impairment of the upper extremity and appears to be superior in reducing impairment of the lower extremity compared with enhanced upper extremity therapy for stroke survivors.

SUBMITTER: Lin Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9463635 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Training Versus Enhanced Upper Extremity Therapy on Upper and Lower Extremity for Stroke Survivors: A Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial.

Lin Yingnan Y Li Qin-Ying QY Qu Qingming Q Ding Li L Chen Zhen Z Huang Fubiao F Hu Shihong S Deng Wei W Guo Fengxian F Wang Chuankai C Deng Panmo P Li Li L Jin Hao H Gao Cong C Shu Beibei B Jia Jie J

Journal of rehabilitation medicine 20220826

<h4>Objective</h4>Robot-assisted neuro-rehabilitation therapy plays a central role in upper extremity recovery of stroke. However, the efficacy of robotic training on the upper extremity is not yet well defined, and little attention has been devoted to its potential effect on the lower extremity. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted training and therapist-mediated enhanced upper extremity therapy on the upper and lower extremities.<h4>Methods</h4>A randomized clini ...[more]

PMID: 35892319

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLoss of arm function is a common problem after stroke. Robot-assisted training might improve arm function and activities of daily living. We compared the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted training using the MIT-Manus robotic gym with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme based on repetitive functional task practice and with usual care.MethodsRATULS was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at four UK centres. Stroke patients aged at least 18 years with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years after their first stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive robot-assisted training, EULT, or usual care. Robot-assisted training and EULT were provided for 45 min, three times per week for 12 weeks. Randomisation was internet-based using permuted block sequences. Treatment allocation was masked from outcome assessors but not from participants or therapists. The primary outcome was upper limb function success (defined using the Action Research Arm Test [ARAT]) at 3 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN69371850.FindingsBetween April 14, 2014, and April 30, 2018, 770 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either robot-assisted training (n=257), EULT (n=259), or usual care (n=254). The primary outcome of ARAT success was achieved by 103 (44%) of 232 patients in the robot-assisted training group, 118 (50%) of 234 in the EULT group, and 85 (42%) of 203 in the usual care group. Compared with usual care, robot-assisted training (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·17 [98·3% CI 0·70-1·96]) and EULT (aOR 1·51 [0·90-2·51]) did not improve upper limb function; the effects of robot-assisted training did not differ from EULT (aOR 0·78 [0·48-1·27]). More participants in the robot-assisted training group (39 [15%] of 257) and EULT group (33 [13%] of 259) had serious adverse events than in the usual care group (20 [8%] of 254), but none were attributable to the intervention.InterpretationRobot-assisted training and EULT did not improve upper limb function after stroke compared with usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation. These results do not support the use of robot-assisted training as provided in this trial in routine clinical practice.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:BackgroundBalance impairments are common in patients with infratentorial stroke. Although robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) exerts positive effects on balance among patients with stroke, it remains unclear whether such training is superior to conventional physical therapy (CPT). Therefore, we aimed to investigate the effects of RAGT combined with CPT and compared them with the effects of CPT only on balance and lower extremity function among survivors of infratentorial stroke.MethodsThis study was a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial with a crossover design conducted at a single rehabilitation hospital. Patients (n = 19; 16 men, three women; mean age: 47.4 ± 11.6 years) with infratentorial stroke were randomly allocated to either group A (4 weeks of RAGT+CPT, followed by 4 weeks of CPT+CPT) or group B (4 weeks of CPT+CPT followed by 4 weeks of RAGT+CPT). Changes in dynamic and static balance as indicated by Berg Balance Scale scores were regarded as the primary outcome measure. Outcome measures were evaluated for each participant at baseline and after each 4-week intervention period.ResultsNo significant differences in outcome-related variables were observed between group A and B at baseline. In addition, no significant time-by-group interactions were observed for any variables, indicating that intervention order had no effect on lower extremity function or balance. Significantly greater improvements in secondary functional outcomes such as lower extremity Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA-LE) and scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) were observed following the RAGT+CPT intervention than following the CPT+CPT intervention.ConclusionRAGT produces clinically significant improvements in balance and lower extremity function in individuals with infratentorial stroke. Thus, RAGT may be useful for patients with balance impairments secondary to other pathologies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02680691. Registered 09 February 2016; retrospectively registered.

Project description:This study investigated the effects of robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) on gait function in burn patients. Briefly, 40 burn patients were randomly divided into an RAGT group or a conventional training (CON) group. SUBAR® (Cretem, Korea) is a wearable robot with a footplate that simulates normal gait cycles. The RAGT group underwent 30 min of robot-assisted training using SUBAR® with 30 min of conventional physiotherapy once a day, 5 days a week for 12 weeks. Patients in the CON group received 30 min of overground gait training and range-of-motion (ROM) exercises twice a day for 5 days a week for 12 weeks. The RAGT group and the CON group underwent 60 min of training per day. The intervention frequency and duration did not differ between the RAGT group and the CON group. The main outcomes were functional ambulatory category (FAC); 6-min walking test (6MWT); visual analogue scale (VAS) during gait movement; ROM; and isometric forces of bilateral hip, knee, and ankle muscles before and after 12 weeks of training. The results of the VAS, FAC, and 6MWT (8.06 ± 0.66, 1.76 ± 0.56, and 204.41 ± 85.60) before training in the RAGT group improved significantly (4.41 ± 1.18, 4.18 ± 0.39, and 298.53 ± 47.75) after training (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001). The results of the VAS, FAC, and 6MWT (8.00 ± 1.21, 1.75 ± 0.58, and 220.94 ± 116.88) before training in the CON group improved significantly (5.00 ± 1.03, 3.81 ± 1.05, and 272.19 ± 110.14) after training (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.05). There were differences in the improvement of results of the VAS, FAC, and 6MWT between groups after training, but they were not statistically significant (p = 0.23, p = 0.14, and p = 0.05). The isometric strengths of the right hip extensor (p = 0.02), bilateral knee flexor (p = 0.04 in the right, and p = 0.001 in the left), bilateral knee extensor (p = 0.003 in the right, and p = 0.002 in the left), bilateral ankle dorsiflexor (p = 0.04 in the right, and p = 0.02 in the left), and bilateral ankle plantarflexor (p = 0.001 in the right, and p = 0.008 in the left) after training were significantly improved compared with those before training in the RAGT group. The ROMs of the right knee extension (p = 0.03) and bilateral ankle plantarflexion (p = 0.008 in the right, and p = 0.03 in the left) were significantly improved compared with measurements before training in the RAGT. There were no significant differences of the isometric strengths and ROMs of the bilateral hip, knee, and ankle muscles after training in the CON group. There were significant improvements in the isometric strengths of the left knee flexor (p = 0.01), left ankle dorsiflexor (p = 0.01), and left ankle plantarflexor (p = 0.003) between the two groups. The results suggested that RAGT is effective to facilitate early recovery of muscles strength after a burn injury. This is the first study to evaluate the effectiveness of RAGT in patients with burns compared with those receiving conventional training. The absence of complications in burn patients provides an opportunity to enlarge the application area of RAGT.

Project description:BackgroundEffective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke.MethodsIn this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks.ResultsAt 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, -0.14 points; 95% CI, -2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95% CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95% CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, -8.10 seconds; 95% CI, -13.61 to -2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionsIn patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)

Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Training Versus Enhanced Upper Extremity Therapy on Upper and Lower Extremity for Stroke Survivors: A Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Training Versus Enhanced Upper Extremity Therapy on Upper and Lower Extremity for Stroke Survivors: A Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets