Pilot Study - Comparison of Upper Body Ergometer Vs. Robot in Upper Extremity Motor Recovery Post-Stroke

June 20, 2006 updated by: Burke Rehabilitation Hospital
We will test whether robot driven, goal directed, trajectory corrected exercise enhances motor outcome in the upper limb of stroke patients better than matched motor activity on an upper body ergometer (monark).

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Upper extremity (UE) weakness post-stroke occurs in 70-80% of patients. By 3 months this complaint persists in 40% of patients, and by 6 months this complaint persists in a similar percentage of patients (1). Greater improvement in motor functional recovery was achieved in patients with intact sensation. Shoulder pain persisted in 20% of patients (2). Most of the arm recovery occurs in the initial 3 months post-stroke (2,3,4). The Copenhagen stroke study found 79% of patients with mild UE paresis achieving functional motor recovery compared to 18% of patients with severe UE paresis (4). Katrak P et al. found early shoulder shrug and synergistic hand movements to be useful bedside predictors of functional motor recovery of the UE (5). The initial grade of paresis (measured on admission in the hospital) is the most important predictor of motor recovery after stroke, with initial paralysis implying the worst prognosis for subsequent motor recovery (6). Perceptual inattention does impact upon UE action and functional recovery (7). The UE weakness and functional motor recovery lags behind lower extremity (LE) weakness and functional motor recovery because of the complexity of motor skills needed for daily living tasks.

Due to the persistence of upper extremity weakness, different rehabilitation techniques such as Constraint Induced (CI) (8,9,10) and robotic (11,12,13) therapies were developed to help with meaningful functional motor recovery in the paretic arm (unilateral arm training). Both of these forced-use interventions focus on the paretic arm only. The main drawback of the CI therapy is that subjects need to have some degree of voluntary movement both at the wrist and the digits. Bilateral arm training with rhythmic clueing (BATRAC) has been used in chronic stroke patients and has been found to improve functional motor performance in the paretic UE (14). The authors in a recent paper showed BATRAC inducing reorganization in contraleisonal motor networks based on functional MRI (15). Facilitation of paretic arm movement by the non-paretic arm (bimanual movement) is thought to be superior to individual paretic arm movement, which indicates both arms to be a coordinated brain unit (16). Richards L et al., in their review article (17) and Vander Lee J et al., in their meta-analysis of randomized stroke trials (18) on therapeutic interventions to improve UE function, found extensive practice to be the most important factor irrespective of the type of intervention instituted. Early repetitive sensorimotor stimulation of the arm results in long-lasting functional motor recovery (19).

The overall goal of this study is to determine whether bilateral arm training with upper body ergometer is as or more effective in upper extremity functional recovery than unilateral arm training with robot in patients with a recent ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment

30

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • New York
      • White Plains, New York, United States, 10605
        • Burke Rehabilitation Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

19 years to 90 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Patients with a recent acute stroke in the last 4 weeks
  2. Patients with an upper extremity plegia (Medical Research Council [MRC] grade 2 or less at the shoulder joint),
  3. Patients or their next of kin (in the absence of their being able to) provide with a written informed consent.
  4. Aphasic alert patients provided they could follow simple directions given by verbal or gestural cues.

Exclusion criteria:

  1. Patients with anterior or severe inferior shoulder subluxation (3 cms) of the plegic arm
  2. Patients without shoulder pain on passive range of 75 degrees forward flexion and 75 degrees abduction of the plegic arm
  3. Patients with trophic skin changes and significant edema (shoulder-hand syndrome)
  4. Patients with prior rotator cuff surgery, patients with bursitis and/or biceps tendonitis
  5. Patients who have suffered recent cardiac events (myocardial infarction, congestive cardiac failure, recent coronary artery bypass surgery)
  6. Patients who refuse to sign a written informed consent.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Functional Independence Measure (FIM™)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
The Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) scale
Motor Status Scale (MSS)
Medical Research Council (MRC)
Motor Power Scale (MPS) Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
Modified Ashworth scale (MAS)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Burke Rehabilitation Hospital

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Meheroz H Rabadi, MD, MRCPI, Burke Rehabilitation Hospital

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

April 1, 2005

Study Completion

May 1, 2006

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 20, 2006

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 20, 2006

First Posted (Estimate)

June 22, 2006

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

June 22, 2006

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 20, 2006

Last Verified

April 1, 2005

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • BRC-357

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Stroke

Clinical Trials on Robot

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Philippines

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe