Discrete Versus Rhythmic Gait Training

Robot-assisted Locomotor Training After Severe Stroke: Discrete Versus Rhythmic Movement

The objective of this study is to compare the effects of novel versus standard locomotor training using a robotic gait orthosis (LT-RGO) after stroke. The hypothesis is that the novel LT-RGO protocol, by establishing a progressive decrease in gait velocity and guidance force, may facilitate greater motor recovery compared to the use of a standard protocol.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Stroke; Cerebral Vascular Disorders
• Intervention / Treatment: Procedure: Novel Protocol; Procedure: Standard Protocol

Detailed Description

Standard (rhythmic) robot-assisted locomotor training on a bodyweight-supported treadmill (LT-BWST) used progressively increased speed each week. Novel (discrete) robot-assisted LT-BWST used progressive decrease in speed. The novel approach of slowing down the treadmill reduced momentum. If speed had been increased (standard approach), momentum would have increased (momentum = mass * velocity); and the resulting, passive propulsion of momentum would have diminished the role of cortical skills needed to plan, initiate, and overtly control gait. In sum, the novel protocol used a slower-than-standard treadmill speed in order to provide a window of time sufficient for the corticomotor system to process information, learn, and adjust its response to internal and external feedback (eg, proprioceptive input; therapist input) during robot-assisted LT-BWST.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 20
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Brazil
  • Sao Paulo, Brazil, 05716-150
    • Instituto de Medicina Física e Reabilitação - Lucy Montoro

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Clinical diagnosis of stroke and image with hemiparesis left or right;
• No more that one ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke episode;
• 06 months post-stroke;
• Verified clinical stability on medical evaluation;
• Spasticity level I or II in the Ashworth scale;
• Score 1-2 in the Functional Ambulation Scale (FAC);
• Signed informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Dependence to perform activities of daily living before the stroke;
• Lack of clinical indications for exercises (such as cardiopulmonary instability and uncontrolled diabetes);
• Severe cognitive impairment;
• Serious psychiatric change that needs psychiatric care;
• Severe osteoporosis;
• Severe spasticity of the lower limbs, deformities or fixed contractures that prevent the achievement of movements;
• Lack of resistance or disabling fatigue;
• Body weight greater than 150 kg;
• Unstable angina or other untreated heart disease;
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
• Unconsolidated fractures, pressure sores;
• Other neurological diseases.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Triple

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Novel Protocol; Progressive decrease of speed and guidance force on robotic gait training. Initial speed is 1.4 km/h and final speed is 1.0 km/h.	Procedure: Novel Protocol; All subjects performed robot-assissted LT-BWST 5 times a week for 6 weeks (30 minutes of training and 15 minutes of setup). Novel (discrete) robot-assisted LT-BWST used progressive decrease in speed. Both groups started the robot-assisted LT-BWST at the same speed of 1.4km/h. The body weight support started approximately at 40% of body weight for both groups and rapidly decreased each week. The guidance force was also progressively decreased for both groups so that the exoskeleton provided the least possible assistance to the subject.
Experimental: Standard Protocol; Progressive increase of speed and decrease of guidance force on robotic gait training. Initial speed is 1.4 km/h and final speed is 1.9 km/h.	Procedure: Standard Protocol; All subjects performed robot-assissted LT-BWST 5 times a week for 6 weeks (30 minutes of training and 15 minutes of setup). Standard (rhythmic) robot-assisted LT-BWST used progressively increased speed each week. Both groups started the robot-assisted LT-BWST at the same speed of 1.4km/h. The body weight support started approximately at 40% of body weight for both groups and rapidly decreased each week. The guidance force was also progressively decreased for both groups so that the exoskeleton provided the least possible assistance to the subject

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Functional Ambulation Scale (FAC)	The Functional Ambulation Scale (FAC) assesses an individual's independence during gait and follows a six-level scale: 0 - Patient can not walk or ask for help from two or more people; 1 - Patient requires continuous support from a person who assists with weight and balance; 2 - Patient needs continuous or intermittent support from a person to help with balance and coordination; 3 - Patient required for a person without physical contact; 4 - Patient can walk independently on the floor, but requires help on stairs and ramps; 5 - Patient can walk independently. This study compared the gait independence by the FAC between the two Arms, after intervention as compared to baseline.	Baseline and 6 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Six-minute Walking Test (6MWT)	Change in distance of the gait applied test after intervention as compared to baseline	Baseline and 6 weeks
Time Up and Go (TUG)	This test assesses the level of mobility of the individual to measure the time spent to get up from a chair, walk a distance of 3 meters, turn around and return. This study compared the change in the time of the gait applied test after intervention as compared to baseline.	Baseline and 6 weeks
Ten-meters Walking Test (10MWT)	Change in the time of the gait applied test after intervention as compared to baseline	Baseline and 6 weeks
Lower Limbs Fugl-Meyer	The Fugl Meyer Scale is a cumulative numerical scoring system that is assessed by an individual: range of motion, pain, tenderness, upper and lower extremity motor function and balance, plus coordination and speed of movement, with total 226 points. A three-point ordinal scale is applied to each item: 0 - can not be performed, 1-performed partially and 2-performed completely. For this study it was only an evaluation of motor function of the extremity of lower limbs with a total score of 0 to 34 points. The lower score indicates greater motor impairment. This study compared the change in motor function of lower limbs applied scale after intervention as compared to baseline	Baseline and 6 weeks
Berg Scale	Berg Scale is a functional scale of equilibrium performance, based on 14 common everyday items that evaluate the static and dynamic balance. The maximum scale score is 56 and each scale item has five alternatives ranging from 0 to 4 points. A score below 45 is considered a fall risk. This study comparede the change in the balance control applied scale after intervention as compared to baseline.	Baseline and 6 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Thais Amanda Rodrigues
• Investigators: Study Chair: Daniel G Goroso, Doctor, University of Sao Paulo; Study Chair: Lumy Sawaki, PhD, University of Kentucky

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start: November 1, 2014
• Primary Completion (Actual): March 1, 2016
• Study Completion (Actual): September 1, 2016

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: January 5, 2016
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: January 6, 2016
• First Posted (Estimate): January 8, 2016

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): September 18, 2017
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 2, 2017
• Last Verified: May 1, 2017

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: gait; rehabilitation; walking; robotics; locomotion
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Cardiovascular Diseases; Brain Diseases; Central Nervous System Diseases; Nervous System Diseases; Vascular Diseases; Cerebrovascular Disorders
• Other Study ID Numbers: Robotics in Stroke

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: UNDECIDED