ArmAssist Robotic System versus Matched Conventional Therapy for Poststroke Upper Limb Rehabilitation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Tijana J Dimkić Tomić, Andrej M Savić, Aleksandra S Vidaković, Sindi Z Rodić, Milica S Isaković, Cristina Rodríguez-de-Pablo, Thierry Keller, Ljubica M Konstantinović, Tijana J Dimkić Tomić, Andrej M Savić, Aleksandra S Vidaković, Sindi Z Rodić, Milica S Isaković, Cristina Rodríguez-de-Pablo, Thierry Keller, Ljubica M Konstantinović

Abstract

The ArmAssist is a simple low-cost robotic system for upper limb motor training that combines known benefits of repetitive task-oriented training, greater intensity of practice, and less dependence on therapist assistance. The aim of this preliminary study was to compare the efficacy of ArmAssist (AA) robotic training against matched conventional arm training in subacute stroke subjects with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment. Twenty-six subjects were enrolled within 3 months of stroke and randomly assigned to the AA group or Control group (n = 13 each). Both groups were trained 5 days per week for 3 weeks. The primary outcome measure was Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) motor score, and the secondary outcomes were Wolf Motor Function Test-Functional Ability Scale (WMFT-FAS) and Barthel index (BI). The AA group, in comparison to the Control group, showed significantly greater increases in FMA-UE score (18.0 ± 9.4 versus 7.5 ± 5.5, p = 0.002) and WMFT-FAS score (14.1 ± 7.9 versus 6.7 ± 7.8, p = 0.025) after 3 weeks of treatment, whereas the increase in BI was not significant (21.2 ± 24.8 versus 13.1 ± 10.7, p = 0.292). There were no adverse events. We conclude that arm training using the AA robotic device is safe and able to reduce motor deficits more effectively than matched conventional arm training in subacute phase of stroke. The study has been registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02729649.

Conflict of interest statement

Andrej M. Savić and Milica S. Isaković are employed at Tecnalia Serbia Ltd., Belgrade, Serbia, and Cristina Rodríguez-de-Pablo and Thierry Keller are employed at TECNALIA, San Sebastian, Spain, from which they receive financial compensation. No external support was received for conducting this study.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
ArmAssist training.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Conventional arm training.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Study flow diagram.

References

    1. Feigin V. L., Lawes C. M. M., Bennett D. A., Anderson C. S. Stroke epidemiology: a review of population-based studies of incidence, prevalence, and case-fatality in the late 20th century. Lancet Neurology. 2003;2(1):43–53. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(03)00266-7.
    1. Kwakkel G., Kollen B. J., van der Grond J., Prevo A. J. H. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003;34(9):2181–2186. doi: 10.1161/.
    1. Nichols-Larsen D. S., Clark P. C., Zeringue A., Greenspan A., Blanton S. Factors influencing stroke survivors' quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke. 2005;36(7):1480–1484. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000170706.13595.4f.
    1. Wyller T. B., Holmen J., Laake P., Laake K. Correlates of subjective well-being in stroke patients. Stroke. 1998;29(2):363–367. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.29.2.363.
    1. Langhorne P., Wagenaar R., Partridge C. Physiotherapy after stroke: more is better? Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy. 1996;1(2):75–88. doi: 10.1002/pri.6120010204.
    1. Teasell R. W., Foley N. C., Bhogal S. K., Speechley M. R. An evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. 2003;10(1):29–58. doi: 10.1310/8YNA-1YHK-YMHB-XTE1.
    1. Zhang H., Austin H., Buchanan S., Herman R., Koeneman J., He J. Feasibility studies of robot-assisted stroke rehabilitation at clinic and home settings using RUPERT. Proceedings of the Rehab Week Zurich—IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR '11); July 2011; Zurich, Switzerland.
    1. Mazzoleni S., Sale P., Tiboni M., Franceschini M., Carrozza M. C., Posteraro F. Upper limb robot-assisted therapy in chronic and subacute stroke patients: a kinematic analysis. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2013;92(10):e26–e37. doi: 10.1097/phm.0b013e3182a1e852.
    1. Kwakkel G., Kollen B. J., Krebs H. I. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2008;22(2):111–121. doi: 10.1177/1545968307305457.
    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 Systematic Review. 2015;(11)CD006876
    1. Sivan M., Gallagher J., Makower S., et al. Home-based Computer Assisted Arm Rehabilitation (hCAAR) robotic device for upper limb exercise after stroke: results of a feasibility study in home setting. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2014;11(1, article no. 163) doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-163.
    1. Rodriguez-De-Pablo C., Balasubramanian S., Savic A., Tomic T. D., Konstantinovic L., Keller T. Validating ArmAssist Assessment as outcome measure in upper-limb post-stroke telerehabilitation. Proceedings of the 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC '15); August 2015; Milano, Italy. IEEE; pp. 4623–4626.
    1. Gladstone D. J., Danells C. J., Black S. E. The Fugl-meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2002;16(3):232–240. doi: 10.1177/154596802401105171.
    1. Harrison J. K., McArthur K. S., Quinn T. J. Assessment scales in stroke: clinimetric and clinical considerations. Clinical Interventions in Aging. 2013;8:201–211. doi: 10.2147/cia.s32405.
    1. Fugl Meyer A. R., Jaasko L., Leyman I. The post stroke hemiplegic patient. I. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 1975;7(1):13–31.
    1. Sanford J., Moreland J., Swanson L. R., Stratford P. W., Gowland C. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Physical Therapy. 1993;73(7):447–454.
    1. Wolf S. L., Thompson P. A., Morris D. M., et al. The EXCITE trial: attributes of the Wolf Motor Function Test in patients with subacute stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2005;19(3):194–205. doi: 10.1177/1545968305276663.
    1. Morris D. M., Uswatte G., Crago J. E., Cook E. W., III, Taub E. The reliability of the wolf motor function test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2001;82(6):750–755. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.23183.
    1. Uyttenboogaart M., Stewart R. E., Vroomen P. C. A. J., De Keyser J., Luijckx G.-J. Optimizing cutoff scores for the Barthel Index and the modified Rankin Scale for defining outcome in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 2005;36(9):1984–1987. doi: 10.1161/01.str.0000177872.87960.61.
    1. Wylie C. M., White B. K. A measure of disability. Archives of Environmental Health. 1964;8(6):834–839. doi: 10.1080/00039896.1964.10663764.
    1. Mehrholz J., Hädrich A., Platz T., Kugler J., Pohl M. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving generic activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012;6CD006876
    1. Liao W.-W., Wu C.-Y., Hsieh Y.-W., Lin K.-C., Chang W.-Y. Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation on daily function and real-world arm activity in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2012;26(2):111–120. doi: 10.1177/0269215511416383.
    1. Masiero S., Armani M., Rosati G. Upper-limb robot-assisted therapy in rehabilitation of acute stroke patients: focused review and results of new randomized controlled trial. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 2011;48(4):355–366. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2010.04.0063.
    1. Sale P., Franceschini M., Mazzoleni S., Palma E., Agosti M., Posteraro F. Effects of upper limb robot-assisted therapy on motor recovery in subacute stroke patients. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2014;11(1, article 104) doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-104.
    1. Hesse S., Heß A., Werner C C., Kabbert N., Buschfort R. Effect on arm function and cost of robot-assisted group therapy in subacute patients with stroke and a moderately to severely affected arm: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2014;28(7):637–647. doi: 10.1177/0269215513516967.
    1. Salter K., Jutai J. W., Teasell R., Foley N. C., Bitensky J. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF body functions. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2005;27(4):191–207. doi: 10.1080/09638280400008537.
    1. Dodakian L., Sharp K. G., See J., et al. Targeted engagement of a dorsal premotor circuit in the treatment of post-stroke paresis. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33(1):13–24. doi: 10.3233/NRE-130923.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir