Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Background: Loss 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.

Methods: RATULS 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.

Findings: Between 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.

Interpretation: Robot-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.

Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1

Trial profile All participants assigned to intervention groups began their trial intervention. Reasons for withdrawals and missed assessments at 3 months and 6 months are in the appendix.

Figure 2

ARAT success, total ARAT score, and Fugl–Meyer motor score at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months (A) Proportion of patients achieving ARAT success. (B) Pair-wise comparison of group success. (C) ARAT total score. (D) Pair-wise comparison of ARAT total score. (E) Fugl–Meyer motor score. (F) Pair-wise comparison of Fugl–Meyer motor score. In (C) and (E), the horizontal black line is the median, the box is the IQR, and whiskers extend to the closest value within the upper or lower quartile ± 1·5 multiplied by the IQR; the black dots are any values outside of this range. ARAT=Action Research Arm Test. EULT=enhanced upper limb therapy. RT=robot-assisted training. UC=usual care.

References

1. 1. Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:741–754.
   2. Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 741–54.
2. 1. Pollock A, St George B, Fenton M, Firkins L. Top 10 research priorities relating to life after stroke--consensus from stroke survivors, caregivers, and health professionals. Int J Stroke. 2014;9:313–320.
   2. Pollock A, St George B, Fenton M, Firkins L. Top 10 research priorities relating to life after stroke–consensus from stroke survivors, caregivers, and health professionals. Int J Stroke 2014; 9: 313–20.
3. 1. French B, Thomas LH, Coupe J. Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11 CD006073.
   2. French B, Thomas LH, Coupe J, et al. Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 11: CD006073.
4. 1. Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC. Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;11 CD010820.
   2. Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC, et al. Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 11: CD010820.
5. 1. Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T, Kugler J, Elsner B. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;9 CD006876.
   2. Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T, Kugler J, Elsner B. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 9: CD006876.
6. 1. Veerbeek JM, Langbroek-Amersfoort AC, van Wegen EE, Meskers CG, Kwakkel G. Effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:107–121.
   2. Veerbeek JM, Langbroek-Amersfoort AC, van Wegen EE, Meskers CG, Kwakkel G. Effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2017; 31: 107–21.
7. 1. Norouzi-Gheidari N, Archambault PS, Fung J. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on stroke rehabilitation in upper limbs: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49:479–496.
   2. Norouzi-Gheidari N, Archambault PS, Fung J. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on stroke rehabilitation in upper limbs: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012; 49: 479–96.
8. 1. Rodgers H, Shaw L, Bosomworth H. Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18:340.
   2. Rodgers H, Shaw L, Bosomworth H, et al. Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2017; 18: 340.
9. 1. Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res. 1981;4:483–492.
   2. Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res 1981; 4: 483–92.
10. 1. Brkic L, Shaw L, van Wijck F. Repetitive arm functional tasks after stroke (RAFTAS): a pilot randomised controlled trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:50.
    2. Brkic L, Shaw L, van Wijck F, et al. Repetitive arm functional tasks after stroke (RAFTAS): a pilot randomised controlled trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2016; 2: 50.
11. 1. Shaw LC, Price CI, van Wijck FM. Botulinum Toxin for the Upper Limb after Stroke (BoTULS) trial: effect on impairment, activity limitation, and pain. Stroke. 2011;42:1371–1379.
    2. Shaw LC, Price CI, van Wijck FM, et al. Botulinum Toxin for the Upper Limb after Stroke (BoTULS) trial: effect on impairment, activity limitation, and pain. Stroke 2011; 42: 1371–79.
12. 1. Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme King's College London. 2019.
    2. Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme: King's College London; 2019. (accessed April 17, 2019).
13. 1. Platz T, Pinkowski C, Van Wijck F, Johnson G. Deutscher Wissenschafts-Verlag; Baden-Baden: 2005. ARM: Arm Rehabilitation Measurement. Manual for performance and scoring of the Fugl-Meyer test (arm section), Action Research Arm test and the Box-and-Block test.
    2. Platz T, Pinkowski C, Van Wijck F, Johnson G. ARM: Arm Rehabilitation Measurement. Manual for performance and scoring of the Fugl-Meyer test (arm section), Action Research Arm test and the Box-and-Block test. Baden-Baden: Deutscher Wissenschafts-Verlag; 2005.
14. 1. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13–31.
    2. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 1975; 7: 13–31.
15. 1. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–65.
    2. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J 1965; 14: 61–65.
16. 1. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:950–963.
    2. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 950–63.
17. 1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–1736.
    2. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011; 20: 1727–36.
18. 1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–1108.
    2. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095–108.
19. 1. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. Centre for Health Economics, The University of York; York: 1999. UK population norms for EQ-5D.
    2. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK population norms for EQ-5D. York: Centre for Health Economics, The University of York, 1999.
20. 1. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15:708–715.
    2. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012; 15: 708–15.
21. 1. Peyre H, Leplege A, Coste J. Missing data methods for dealing with missing items in quality of life questionnaires. A comparison by simulation of personal mean score, full information maximum likelihood, multiple imputation, and hot deck techniques applied to the SF-36 in the French 2003 decennial health survey. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:287–300.
    2. Peyre H, Leplege A, Coste J. Missing data methods for dealing with missing items in quality of life questionnaires. A comparison by simulation of personal mean score, full information maximum likelihood, multiple imputation, and hot deck techniques applied to the SF-36 in the French 2003 decennial health survey. Qual Life Res 2011; 20: 287–300.
22. 1. Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Econ. 2004;13:461–475.
    2. Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Econ 2004; 13: 461–75.
23. 1. Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ, Blackhouse G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:377–401.
    2. Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ, Blackhouse G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health 2002; 23: 377–401.
24. 1. Lundquist CB, Maribo T. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity: reliability, responsiveness and validity of the Danish version. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39:934–939.
    2. Lundquist CB, Maribo T. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity: reliability, responsiveness and validity of the Danish version. Disabil Rehabil 2017; 39: 934–39.
25. 1. Ryan S. Rehabilitation Measures Database. April, 2016.
    2. Ryan S. Rehabilitation Measures Database. April, 2016. (accessed April 17, 2019).
26. 1. Kwakkel G, Lannin NA, Borschmann K. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Int J Stroke. 2017;12:451–461.
    2. Kwakkel G, Lannin NA, Borschmann K, et al. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Int J Stroke 2017; 12: 451–61.
27. 1. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party . Royal College of Physicians; London: 2016. National clinical guideline for stroke.
    2. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. National clinical guideline for stroke. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2016. (accessed May 16, 2019).
28. 1. Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, Haselkorn JK, Wittenberg GF, Federman DG. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1772–1783.
    2. Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, Haselkorn JK, Wittenberg GF, Federman DG, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1772–83.
29. 1. Wagner TH, Lo AC, Peduzzi P. An economic analysis of robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. Stroke. 2011;42:2630–2632.
    2. Wagner TH, Lo AC, Peduzzi P, et al. An economic analysis of robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. Stroke 2011; 42: 2630–32.
30. 1. Remy-Neris O, Medee B, Bensmail D. Rehabilitation robotics of the upper limb after stroke. The REM_AVC trial. Ann Phys Rehab Med. 2018;61(suppl):e21.
    2. Remy-Neris O, Medee B, Bensmail D, et al. Rehabilitation robotics of the upper limb after stroke. The REM_AVC trial. Ann Phys Rehab Med 2018; 61 (suppl): e21.
31. 1. Harris JE, Eng JJ, Miller WC, Dawson AS. A self-administered Graded Repetitive Arm Supplementary Program (GRASP) improves arm function during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a multi-site randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2009;40:2123–2128.
    2. Harris JE, Eng JJ, Miller WC, Dawson AS. A self-administered Graded Repetitive Arm Supplementary Program (GRASP) improves arm function during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a multi-site randomized controlled trial. Stroke 2009; 40: 2123–28.
32. 1. Stinear CM, Byblow WD, Ackerley SJ, Smith MC, Borges VM, Barber PA. PREP2: a biomarker-based algorithm for predicting upper limb function after stroke. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2017;4:811–820.
    2. Stinear CM, Byblow WD, Ackerley SJ, Smith MC, Borges VM, Barber PA. PREP2: a biomarker-based algorithm for predicting upper limb function after stroke. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2017; 4: 811–20.
33. 1. Cramer SC, Wolf SL, Adams HP., Jr Stroke recovery and rehabilitation research: issues, opportunities, and the National Institutes Of Health StrokeNet. Stroke. 2017;48:813–819.
    2. Cramer SC, Wolf SL, Adams HP Jr, et al. Stroke recovery and rehabilitation research: issues, opportunities, and the National Institutes Of Health StrokeNet. Stroke. 2017; 48: 813–19.
34. 1. Lohse KR, Lang CE, Boyd LA. Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2014;45:2053–2058.
    2. Lohse KR, Lang CE, Boyd LA. Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 2014; 45: 2053–58.