Effect of Robot Rehabilitation Exercise Training on Motor Control After Stroke

Stroke is a leading cause of neurological disability worldwide, often causing significant weakening and paresis of the affected arm. National spending on post-stroke rehabilitation is project to expand 20% to 35% through 2010. As a new tool for therapists, robotic stroke therapy devices have the potential to be a cost-effective device aid to physical therapy and enable novel modes of exercise not currently available. While recent studies have shown chronic patients benefit from repetitive practice, it is not clear whether they improved via a reduction in impairment or increased functional compensation because there is a lack of standard treatment and scales to assess rehabilitation efficacy in chronic stroke patients. This study aims to reconcile difference performance measurements in robotic rehabilitation to assess the outcome of robotic rehabilitation training.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Stroke
• Intervention / Treatment: Device: Robotic arm therapy

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 9
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • New York
    • New York, New York, United States, 10032
      • Columbia Univeristy, Neurological Institute

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 21 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Hemiparesis of the upper extremity
2. Diagnosis of a first clinically apparent ischemic stroke at least 6 months prior to study entry
3. Age 18 years or older
4. Ability to sit and be active for an hour on a chair (or wheelchair) without cardiac, respiratory disturbances and/or pain.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Inability to understand and/or follow instructions
2. Pain in shoulder or arm
3. Other neurological or musculoskeletal target organ disorder
4. Inability to give informed consent personally
5. Previous or current contracture of the upper extremity

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

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

Number of Arms

1

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Robot arm rehabilitation therapy; Arm training using the ReoGo robotic device, 3 times a week for 3 weeks.	Device: Robotic arm therapy; Training with the ReoGo device

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Change in Arm Motor Control From Baseline Measured as Average Squared Mahalanobis Distance	Arm motor control was assessed through analysis of reaching movements to targets. We derive a measure of arm motor control using functional principal components analysis of reaching trajectories (average squared Mahalanobis distance). This is a unitless measure and lower change values reflect improvement in motor control, while a higher change value reflect a worsening in motor control.	From baseline to within 1 week post-therapy

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Fugl-Meyer (FM) Upper Extremity Motor Assessment	The FM is a measure of impairment that considers movement arm, wrist, hand, and coordination. Each of the 22 items is scored on a three-point ordinal scale for total score between a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 66. A higher score indicates a better outcome.	baseline (1 and 3 weeks prior to therapy), within 1 week after therapy, 3 weeks after therapy
Action Research Arm Test	The ARAT tests hand and arm function and consists of 19 items in 4 domains: grasp, grip, pinch, and gross movement. Each domain contains items arranged into hierarchical order of difficulty such that success at the most difficult item of a specific subclass assumes success for all items lower in the hierarchy of the same class. Each item is scored on a four-point ordinal scale for total score between a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 57. A higher score indicates a better outcome.	baseline (1 and 3 weeks prior to therapy), within 1 week after therapy, 3 weeks after therapy

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Columbia University
• Collaborators: Mailman School of Public Health; Orentreich Family Foundation
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: John Krakauer, MD, Columbia University

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start: October 1, 2008
• Primary Completion (Actual): May 1, 2011
• Study Completion (Actual): May 1, 2011

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: January 1, 2015
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: January 2, 2015
• First Posted (Estimate): January 6, 2015

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): May 7, 2019
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: April 18, 2019
• Last Verified: April 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Cardiovascular Diseases; Vascular Diseases; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Brain Diseases; Central Nervous System Diseases; Nervous System Diseases; Stroke
• Other Study ID Numbers: AAAD3437