Diese Seite wurde automatisch übersetzt und die Genauigkeit der Übersetzung wird nicht garantiert. Bitte wende dich an die englische Version für einen Quelltext.

Discrete Versus Rhythmic Gait Training

2. Mai 2017 aktualisiert von: Thais Amanda Rodrigues

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.

Studienübersicht

Detaillierte Beschreibung

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.

Studientyp

Interventionell

Einschreibung (Tatsächlich)

20

Phase

  • Unzutreffend

Kontakte und Standorte

Dieser Abschnitt enthält die Kontaktdaten derjenigen, die die Studie durchführen, und Informationen darüber, wo diese Studie durchgeführt wird.

Studienorte

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

Teilnahmekriterien

Forscher suchen nach Personen, die einer bestimmten Beschreibung entsprechen, die als Auswahlkriterien bezeichnet werden. Einige Beispiele für diese Kriterien sind der allgemeine Gesundheitszustand einer Person oder frühere Behandlungen.

Zulassungskriterien

Studienberechtigtes Alter

18 Jahre und älter (Erwachsene, Älterer Erwachsener)

Akzeptiert gesunde Freiwillige

Nein

Studienberechtigte Geschlechter

Alle

Beschreibung

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.

Studienplan

Dieser Abschnitt enthält Einzelheiten zum Studienplan, einschließlich des Studiendesigns und der Messung der Studieninhalte.

Wie ist die Studie aufgebaut?

Designdetails

  • Hauptzweck: Behandlung
  • Zuteilung: Zufällig
  • Interventionsmodell: Parallele Zuordnung
  • Maskierung: Verdreifachen

Waffen und Interventionen

Teilnehmergruppe / Arm
Intervention / Behandlung
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.
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.
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

Was misst die Studie?

Primäre Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
Functional Ambulation Scale (FAC)
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 weeks

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

Sekundäre Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
Six-minute Walking Test (6MWT)
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 weeks
Change in distance of the gait applied test after intervention as compared to baseline
Baseline and 6 weeks
Time Up and Go (TUG)
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 weeks
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)
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 weeks
Change in the time of the gait applied test after intervention as compared to baseline
Baseline and 6 weeks
Lower Limbs Fugl-Meyer
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 weeks

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
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 weeks
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

Mitarbeiter und Ermittler

Hier finden Sie Personen und Organisationen, die an dieser Studie beteiligt sind.

Ermittler

  • Studienstuhl: Daniel G Goroso, Doctor, University of Sao Paulo
  • Studienstuhl: Lumy Sawaki, PhD, University of Kentucky

Studienaufzeichnungsdaten

Diese Daten verfolgen den Fortschritt der Übermittlung von Studienaufzeichnungen und zusammenfassenden Ergebnissen an ClinicalTrials.gov. Studienaufzeichnungen und gemeldete Ergebnisse werden von der National Library of Medicine (NLM) überprüft, um sicherzustellen, dass sie bestimmten Qualitätskontrollstandards entsprechen, bevor sie auf der öffentlichen Website veröffentlicht werden.

Haupttermine studieren

Studienbeginn

1. November 2014

Primärer Abschluss (Tatsächlich)

1. März 2016

Studienabschluss (Tatsächlich)

1. September 2016

Studienanmeldedaten

Zuerst eingereicht

5. Januar 2016

Zuerst eingereicht, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt hat

6. Januar 2016

Zuerst gepostet (Schätzen)

8. Januar 2016

Studienaufzeichnungsaktualisierungen

Letztes Update gepostet (Tatsächlich)

18. September 2017

Letztes eingereichtes Update, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt

2. Mai 2017

Zuletzt verifiziert

1. Mai 2017

Mehr Informationen

Begriffe im Zusammenhang mit dieser Studie

Plan für individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD)

Planen Sie, individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD) zu teilen?

UNENTSCHIEDEN

Diese Informationen wurden ohne Änderungen direkt von der Website clinicaltrials.gov abgerufen. Wenn Sie Ihre Studiendaten ändern, entfernen oder aktualisieren möchten, wenden Sie sich bitte an register@clinicaltrials.gov. Sobald eine Änderung auf clinicaltrials.gov implementiert wird, wird diese automatisch auch auf unserer Website aktualisiert .

Klinische Studien zur Novel Protocol

Abonnieren