Motor and psychosocial impact of robot-assisted gait training in a real-world rehabilitation setting: A pilot study

Cira Fundarò, Anna Giardini, Roberto Maestri, Silvia Traversoni, Michelangelo Bartolo, Roberto Casale, Cira Fundarò, Anna Giardini, Roberto Maestri, Silvia Traversoni, Michelangelo Bartolo, Roberto Casale

Abstract

In the last decade robotic devices have been applied in rehabilitation to overcome walking disability in neurologic diseases with promising results. Robot assisted gait training (RAGT) using the Lokomat seems not only to improve gait parameters but also the perception of well-being. Data on the psychosocial patient-robot impact are limited, in particular in the real-world of RAGT, in the rehabilitation setting. During rehabilitation training, the Lokomat can be considered an "assistive device for movement". This allowed the use of the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Device Scale- PIADS to describe patient interaction with the Lokomat. The primary aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the psychosocial impact of the Lokomat in an in-patient rehabilitation setting using the PIADS; secondary aims were to assess whether the psychosocial impact of RAGT is different between pathological sub-groups and if the Lokomat influenced functional variables (Functional Independence Measure scale-FIM and parameters provided by the Lokomat itself). Thirty-nine consecutive patients (69% males, 54.0±18.0 years) eligible for Lokomat training, with etiologically heterogeneous walking disabilities (Parkinson's Disease, n = 10; Spinal Cord Injury, n = 21; Ictus Event, n = 8) were enrolled. Patients were assessed with the FIM before and after rehabilitation with Lokomat, and the PIADS was administered after the rehabilitative period with Lokomat. Overall the PIADS score was positive (35.8±21.6), as well as the three sub-scales, pertaining to "ability", "adaptability" and "self-esteem" (17.2±10.4, 8.9±5.5 and 10.1±6.6 respectively) with no between-group differences. All patients significantly improved in gait measure and motor FIM scale (difference after-before treatment values: 11.7±9.8 and 11.2±10.3 respectively), increased treadmill speed (0.4 ± 0.2m/s), reduced body weight support (-14.0±9.5%) and guidance force (-13.1 ± 10.7%). This pilot study indicates that Lokomat, in a real-world in-patient setting, may have a generalised approval, independent of disease, underlining the importance of the psycho-social framework for patients training with assistive robotic-devices.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Flow diagram of the research…
Fig 1. Flow diagram of the research outline.

References

    1. Calabrò RS, Cacciola A, Bertè F, Manuli A, Leo A, Bramanti A et al. Robotic gait rehabilitation and substitution devices in neurological disorders: where are we now?. Neurol Sci. 2016. April; 37(4):503–14. doi:
    1. Beckerle P, Salvietti G, Unal R, Prattichizzo D, Rossi S, Castellini C et al. A Human-Robot Interaction Perspective on Assistive and Rehabilitation Robotics. Front Neurorobot. 2017. May 23;11:24 doi:
    1. Furnari A, Calabrò RS, De Cola MC, Bartolo M, Castelli A, Mapelli A et al. Robotic-assisted gait training in Parkinson's disease: a three-month follow-up randomized clinical trial. Int J Neurosci. 2017. February 13:1–9.
    1. Calabrò RS, Russo M, Naro A, De Luca R, Leo A, Tomasello P et al. Robotic gait training in multiple sclerosis rehabilitation: Can virtual reality make the difference? Findings from a randomized controlled trial. J Neurol Sci. 2017. June 15;377:25–30. doi:
    1. Nam KY, Kim HJ, Kwon BS, Park JW, Lee HJ, Yoo A. Robot-assisted gait training (Lokomat) improves walking function and activity in people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017. Mar 23;14(1):24) doi:
    1. Bang DH, Shin WS. Effects of robot-assisted gait training on spatiotemporal gait parameters and balance in patients with chronic stroke: A randomized controlled pilot trial. NeuroRehabilitation. 2016. April 6;38(4):343–9. doi:
    1. Dundar U, Toktas H, Solak O, Ulasli AM, Eroglu S. A comparative study of conventional physiotherapy versus robotic training combined with physiotherapy in patients with stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2014. Nov-Dec;21(6):453–61. doi:
    1. Calabrò RS, De Cola MC, Leo A, Reitano S, Balletta T, Trombetta G et al. Robotic neurorehabilitation in patients with chronic stroke: psychological well-being beyond motor improvement. Int J Rehabil Res. 2015. September; 38(3):219–25. doi:
    1. Stampacchia G, Rustici A, Bigazzi S, Gerini A, Tombini T, Mazzoleni S. Walking with a powered robotic exoskeleton: Subjective experience, spasticity and pain in spinal cord injured persons. NeuroRehabilitation. 2016. June 27;39(2):277–83. doi:
    1. Phelan SK, Gibson BE, Wright FV. What is it like to walk with the help of a robot? Children's perspectives on robotic gait training technology. Disabil Rehabil. 2015. 37(24):2272–81. doi:
    1. World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF.
    1. Schiavolin S, Raggi A, Quintas R, Cerniauskaite M, Giovannetti AM, Covelli V et al. Psychosocial difficulties in patients with Parkinson's disease. Int J Rehabil Res. 2017. June;40(2):112–118. doi:
    1. Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devises: the PIADS. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation. 1996; 9 (2), 159–168.
    1. Day H, Jutai J, Campbell KA. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Device Scale, Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil Rehabil. 2002. January 10-February 15;24(1–3):31–7.
    1. Orellano-Colón EM, Jutai J, Santiago A, Torres V, Benítez K, Torres M. Assistive Technology Needs and Measurement of the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Technologies for Independent Living of Older Hispanics: Lessons Learned. Technologies (Basel). 2016. September;4(3): 21 doi:
    1. Ottenbacher K. J., Hsu Y., Granger C. V, Fiedler R. C. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1996; 77(12), 1226–32.
    1. Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD. Performance profiles of the functional independence measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1993; 72(2):84–9.
    1. Linn BS, Linn MW, Gure L. Cumulative illness rating scale. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1968; 16 (5): 622–6.
    1. Parmalee PA, Thuras PD, Katz IR, Lawton MP. Validation of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale in a geriatric residential population. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995; 43:130–137.
    1. Andrich R, Pedroni F, Vanni G. Italian Localisation of the PIADS in “Craddock G et al. (eds): Assisitive Technology-Shaping the future. Amsterdam: IOS Press;. 2003.
    1. Jutay J, Day H. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technology and Disability. 2002; 14:107–111.
    1. Pani D, Piga M, Barabino G, Crabolu M, Uras S, Mathieu A et al. Home tele-rehabilitation for rheumatic patients: impact and satisfation of care analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2017; 23(29: 292–300.
    1. Salatino C, Andrich R, Converti RM, Saruggia M. An observation study of powered wheelchair provision in Italy. Assist Technol. 2016; 28(1): 41–52. doi:
    1. Koumpouros Y. A Systematic Review on Existing Measures for the Subjective Assessment of Rehabilitation and Assistive Robot Devices. J Healthc Eng. 2016. doi:
    1. Mann G, Taylor P, Lane R. Accelerometer-triggered electrical stimulation for reach and grasp in chronic stroke patients: a pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011; October;25(8):774–80. doi:
    1. Caligari M, Godi M, Guglielmetti S, Franchignoni F, Nardone A. Eye tracking communication devices in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: impact on disability and quality of life. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2013. Dec; 14(7–8):546–52. doi:
    1. Bortole M, Venkatakrishnan A, Zhu F, Moreno JC, Francisco GE, Pons JL et al. The H2 robotic exoskeleton for gait rehabilitation after stroke: early findings from a clinical study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015. June 17;12:54 doi:
    1. Knaepen K, Mierau A, Swinnen E, Fernandez Tellez H, Michielsen M, Kerckhofs E et al. Human-Robot Interaction: Does Robotic Guidance Force Affect Gait-Related Brain Dynamics during Robot-Assisted Treadmill Walking? PLoS One. 2015. October 20;10(10):e0140626 doi:
    1. Bragoni M, Broccoli M, Iosa M, Morone G, De Angelis D, Venturiero V et al. Influence of psychologic features on rehabilitation outcomes in patients with subacute stroke trained with robotic-aided walking therapy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013. October; 92(10 Suppl 2):e16–25.
    1. Iosa M, Morone G, Cherubini A, Paolucci S. (2016) The Three Laws of Neurorobotics: A Review on What Neurorehabilitation Robots Should Do for Patients and Clinicians. J Med Biol Eng. 2016; 36:1–11. doi:
    1. Eicher C, Haesner M, Spranger M, Kuzmicheva O, Graser A, Steinhagen-Thiessen E. Usability and acceptability by a younger and older user group regarding a mobile robot-supported gait rehabilitation system. Assist Technol. 2017. July 12 doi:
    1. Chisari C, Bertolucci F, Monaco V, Venturi M, Simonella C, Micera S et al. Robot-assisted gait training improves motor performances and modifies Motor Unit firing in post stroke patients. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2015. February;51(1):59–69. Epub 2014 Jan 30
    1. Picelli A, Melotti C, Origano F, Waldner A, Fiaschi A, Santilli V et al. Robot-assisted gait training in patients with Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012. May;26(4):353–61. doi:
    1. Shin JC, Kim JY, Park HK, Kim NY. Effect of robotic-assisted gait training in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury. Ann Rehabil Med. 2014. December;38(6):719–25. doi:
    1. van Kammen K, Boonstra AM, van der Woude LH, Reinders-Messelink HA, den Otter R. The combined effects of guidance force, body-weight support and gait speed on muscle activity during able-bodied walking in the Lokomat. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2016. July;36:65–73.
    1. Rose MH, Løkkegaard A, Sonne-Holm S, Jensen BR. Improved clinical status, quality of life, and walking capacity in Parkinson's disease after body weight-supported high-intensity locomotor training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013. April;94(4):687–92. doi:
    1. Lam T, Pauhl K, Ferguson A, Malik RN, Kin B., Krassioukov A, Eng JJ. Training with robot-applied resistance in people with motor-incomplete spinal cord injury: Pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015; 52(1):113–29. doi:
    1. Esclarín-Ruz A, Alcobendas-Maestro M, Casado-Lopez R, Perez-Mateos G, Florido-Sanchez MA, Gonzalez-Valdizan E et al. A comparison of robotic walking therapy and conventional walking therapy in individuals with upper versus lower motor neuron lesions: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014. June;95(6):1023–31. doi:
    1. Schwartz I, Sajin A, Moreh E, Fisher I, Neeb M, Forest A et al. Robot-assisted gait training in multiple sclerosis patients: a randomized trial. Mult Scler. 2012. June;18(6):881–90. doi:
    1. Zhou DH1, Wang JY, Li J, Deng J, Gao C, Chen M. Frequency and risk factors of vascular cognitive impairment three months after ischemic stroke in china: the Chongqing stroke study. Neuroepidemiology. 2005; 24(1–2):87–95. doi:
    1. Watson GS, Leverenz JB. Profile of cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease. Brain Pathol. 2010. May;20(3):640–5. doi:
    1. Pierobon A, Giardini A, Maestri R, Farina C, Callegari S, Torlaschi V et al. Disexecutive functions and depression in patients with Parkinson disease: the impact on rehabilitation outcome. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014. September;93(9):764–73. doi:
    1. Wenke R, Cardell E, Lawrie M, Gunning D. Communication and well-being outcomes of a hybrid service delivery model of intensive impairment-based treatment for aphasia in the hospital setting: a pilot study. Disabil Rehabil. 2017. March 21:1–10.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe