Efficacy of an exoskeleton-based physical therapy program for non-ambulatory patients during subacute stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial

Dennis R Louie, W Ben Mortenson, Melanie Durocher, Amy Schneeberg, Robert Teasell, Jennifer Yao, Janice J Eng, Dennis R Louie, W Ben Mortenson, Melanie Durocher, Amy Schneeberg, Robert Teasell, Jennifer Yao, Janice J Eng

Abstract

Background: Individuals requiring greater physical assistance to practice walking complete fewer steps in physical therapy during subacute stroke rehabilitation. Powered exoskeletons have been developed to allow repetitious overground gait training for individuals with lower limb weakness. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of exoskeleton-based physical therapy training during subacute rehabilitation for walking recovery in non-ambulatory patients with stroke.

Methods: An assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted at 3 inpatient rehabilitation hospitals. Patients with subacute stroke (< 3 months) who were unable to walk without substantial assistance (Functional Ambulation Category rating of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned to receive exoskeleton-based or standard physical therapy during rehabilitation, until discharge or a maximum of 8 weeks. The experimental protocol replaced 75% of standard physical therapy sessions with individualized exoskeleton-based sessions to increase standing and stepping repetition, with the possibility of weaning off the device. The primary outcome was walking ability, measured using the Functional Ambulation Category. Secondary outcomes were gait speed, distance walked on the 6-Minute Walk Test, days to achieve unassisted gait, lower extremity motor function (Fugl-Meyer Assessment), Berg Balance Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and 36-Item Short Form Survey, measured post-intervention and after 6 months.

Results: Thirty-six patients with stroke (mean 39 days post-stroke) were randomized (Exoskeleton = 19, Usual Care = 17). On intention-to-treat analysis, no significant between-group differences were found in the primary or secondary outcomes at post-intervention or after 6 months. Five participants randomized to the Exoskeleton group did not receive the protocol as planned and thus exploratory as-treated and per-protocol analyses were undertaken. The as-treated analysis found that those adhering to exoskeleton-based physical therapy regained independent walking earlier (p = 0.03) and had greater gait speed (p = 0.04) and 6MWT (p = 0.03) at 6 months; however, these differences were not significant in the per-protocol analysis. No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusions: This study found that exoskeleton-based physical therapy does not result in greater improvements in walking independence than standard care but can be safely administered at no detriment to patient outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration The Exoskeleton for post-Stroke Recovery of Ambulation (ExStRA) trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02995265, first registered: December 16, 2016).

Keywords: Clinical trial; Exoskeleton; Physical therapy techniques; Rehabilitation; Stroke; Walking.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests with respect to the equipment, research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of study participants

References

    1. Harris JE, Eng JJ. Goal priorities identified through client-centred measurement in individuals with chronic stroke. Physiother Canada. 2004;56:171–176. doi: 10.2310/6640.2004.00017.
    1. Rudberg AS, Berge E, Laska AC, Jutterström S, Näsman P, Sunnerhagen KS, et al. Stroke survivors’ priorities for research related to life after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2021;28:153–158. doi: 10.1080/10749357.2020.1789829.
    1. Bijleveld-Uitman M, Van De Port I, Kwakkel G. Is gait speed or walking distance a better predictor for community walking after stroke? J Rehabil Med. 2013;45:535–540. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1147.
    1. Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ahmed S, Gordon C, Higgins J, McEwen S, et al. Disablement following stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21:258–268. doi: 10.1080/096382899297684.
    1. Hackett ML, Köhler S, O’Brien JT, Mead GE. Neuropsychiatric outcomes of stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13:525–534. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70016-X.
    1. Liu-Ambrose T, Pang MYC, Eng JJ. Executive function is independently associated with performances of balance and mobility in community-dwelling older adults after mild stroke: implications for falls prevention. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007;23:203–210. doi: 10.1159/000097642.
    1. Min KB, Min JY. Health-related quality of life is associated with stroke deficits in older adults. Age Ageing. 2015;44:700–704. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afv060.
    1. Hebert D, Lindsay MP, McIntyre A, Kirton A, Rumney PG, Bagg S, et al. Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: stroke rehabilitation practice guidelines, update 2015. Int J Stroke. 2016;11:459–484. doi: 10.1177/1747493016643553.
    1. Krakauer JW, Carmichael ST, Corbett D. Getting neurorehabilitation right—what can we learn from animal models? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:923–931. doi: 10.1177/1545968312440745.
    1. Lacroix J, Daviet JC, Borel B, Kammoun B, Salle J-Y, Mandigout S. Physical activity level among stroke patients hospitalized in a rehabilitation unit. PM R. 2016;8:97–104. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.06.011.
    1. Rand D, Eng JJ. Disparity between functional recovery and daily use of the upper and lower extremities during subacute stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:76–84. doi: 10.1177/1545968311408918.
    1. Bogey R, Hornby TG. Gait training strategies utilized in poststroke rehabilitation: are we really making a difference? Top Stroke Rehabil. 2007;14:1–8. doi: 10.1310/tsr1406-1.
    1. Mehrholz J, Thomas S, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M, Elsner B. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke (Review) Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;5:CD006185.
    1. Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Recovery of walking function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:27–32. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80038-7.
    1. Jarvis HL, Brown SJ, Price M, Butterworth C, Groenevelt R, Jackson K, et al. Return to employment after stroke in young adults: how important is the speed and energy cost of walking? Stroke. 2019;50:3198–3204. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025614.
    1. Dobkin BH, Duncan PW. Should body weight-supported treadmill training and robotic-assistive steppers for locomotor training trot back to the starting gate? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:308–317. doi: 10.1177/1545968312439687.
    1. Hidler J, Nichols D, Pelliccio M, Brady K, Campbell DD, Kahn JH, et al. Multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Lokomat in subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:5–13. doi: 10.1177/1545968308326632.
    1. Mayr A, Quirbach E, Picelli A, Kofler M, Smania N, Saltuari L. Early robot-assisted gait retraining in non-ambulatory patients with stroke: a single blind randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;54:819–826.
    1. Bruni MF, Melegari C, De Cola MC, Bramanti A, Bramanti P, Calabrò RS. What does best evidence tell us about robotic gait rehabilitation in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;48:11–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.10.048.
    1. Mehrholz J, Elsner B, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke (Review) Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013:CD006185.
    1. Louie DR, Eng JJ. Powered robotic exoskeletons in post-stroke rehabilitation of gait: a scoping review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:53. doi: 10.1186/s12984-016-0162-5.
    1. Hornby TG, Reisman DS, Ward IG, Scheets PL, Miller A, Haddad D, et al. Clinical practice guideline to improve locomotor function following chronic stroke, incomplete spinal cord injury, and brain injury. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2020;44:49–100. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000303.
    1. Molteni F, Gasperini G, Gaffuri M, Colombo M, Giovanzana C, Lorenzon C, et al. Wearable robotic exoskeleton for overground gait training in sub-acute and chronic hemiparetic stroke patients: preliminary results. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017;53:676–684. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04591-9.
    1. Louie DR, Mortenson WB, Durocher M, Teasell R, Yao J, Eng JJ. Exoskeleton for post-stroke recovery of ambulation (ExStRA): study protocol for a mixed-methods study investigating the efficacy and acceptance of an exoskeleton-based physical therapy program during stroke inpatient rehabilitation. BMC Neurol. 2020;20:35. doi: 10.1186/s12883-020-1617-7.
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:1687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:726–732. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232.
    1. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. Reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther. 1984;64:35–40. doi: 10.1093/ptj/64.1.35.
    1. Louie DR, Eng JJ. Berg Balance Scale score at admission can predict walking suitable for community ambulation at discharge from inpatient stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2018;50:37–44. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2280.
    1. Ada L, Dean CM, Vargas J, Ennis S. Mechanically assisted walking with body weight support results in more independent walking than assisted overground walking in non-ambulatory patients early after stroke: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2010;56:153–161. doi: 10.1016/S1836-9553(10)70020-5.
    1. Canadian Stroke Network. The quality of stroke care in Canada. 2011. .
    1. Treacy D, Hassett L, Schurr K, Chagpar S, Paul SS, Sherrington C. Validity of different activity monitors to count steps in inpatient rehabilitation setting. Phys Ther. 2017;97:581–588. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzx010.
    1. Taraldsen K, Askim T, Sletvold O, Einarsen EK, Grüner Bjåstad K, Indredavik B, et al. Evaluation of a body-worn sensor system to measure physical activity in older people with impaired function. Phys Ther. 2011;91:277–285. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100159.
    1. Mehrholz J, Wagner K, Rutte K, Meissner D, Pohl M. Predictive validity and responsiveness of the Functional Ambulation Category in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:1314–1319. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.06.764.
    1. Fulk GD, Echternach JL. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of gait speed in individuals undergoing rehabilitation after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2008;32:8–13. doi: 10.1097/NPT0b013e31816593c0.
    1. Salbach NM, Mayo NE, Higgins J, Ahmed S, Finch LE, Richards CL. Responsiveness and predictability of gait speed and other disability measures in acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:1204–1212. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.24907.
    1. Fulk GD, He Y. Minimal clinically important difference of the 6-minute walk test in people with stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2018;42:235–240. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000236.
    1. Fulk GD, Echternach JL, Nof L, O’Sullivan S. Clinometric properties of the six-minute walk test in individuals undergoing rehabilitation poststroke. Physiother Theory Pract. 2008;24:195–204. doi: 10.1080/09593980701588284.
    1. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö 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.
    1. Park EY, Choi YI. Psychometric properties of the lower extremity subscale of the Fugl-Myer Assessment for community-dwelling hemiplegic stroke patients. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26:1775–1777. doi: 10.1589/jpts.26.1775.
    1. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Gayton D. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Canada. 1989;41:304–311. doi: 10.3138/ptc.41.6.304.
    1. Blum L, Korner-Bitensky N. Usefulness of the Berg Balance Scale in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2008;88:559–566. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20070205.
    1. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:606–613. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.
    1. de Man-van Ginkel JM, Gooskens F, Schepers VPM, Schuurmans MJ, Lindeman E, Hafsteinsdóttir TB. Screening for poststroke depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire. Nurs Res. 2012;61:333–341. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e31825d9e9e.
    1. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:695–699. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x.
    1. Toglia J, Fitzgerald KA, O’Dell MW, Mastrogiovanni AR, Lin CD. The mini-mental state examination and montreal cognitive assessment in persons with mild subacute stroke: Relationship to functional outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:792–798. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.12.034.
    1. Hays RD, Morales LS. The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life. Ann Med. 2001;33:350–357. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002089.
    1. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller S. SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: a user’s manual. Boston: The Health Institute; 1994.
    1. Jørgensen AW, Lundstrøm LH, Wetterslev J, Astrup A, Gøtzsche PC. Comparison of results from different imputation techniques for missing data from an anti-obesity drug trial. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e111964. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111964.
    1. Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S. Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials. 2012;9:45–55. doi: 10.1177/1740774511420743.
    1. Sczesny-Kaiser M, Trost R, Aach M, Schildhauer TA, Schwenkreis P, Tegenthoff M. A randomized and controlled crossover study investigating the improvement of walking and posture functions in chronic stroke patients using HAL exoskeleton—the HALESTRO study (HAL-Exoskeleton STROke study) Front Neurosci. 2019;13:1–13. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00259.
    1. Calabrò RS, Naro A, Russo M, Bramanti P, Carioti L, Balletta T, et al. Shaping neuroplasticity by using powered exoskeletons in patients with stroke: a randomized clinical trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018;15:35. doi: 10.1186/s12984-018-0377-8.
    1. Tan CK, Kadone H, Watanabe H, Marushima A, Hada Y, Yamazaki M, et al. Differences in muscle synergy symmetry between subacute post-stroke patients with bioelectrically-controlled exoskeleton gait training and conventional gait training. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:1–19. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00001.
    1. Watanabe H, Goto R, Tanaka N, Matsumura A, Yanagi H. Effects of gait training using the Hybrid Assistive Limb® in recovery-phase stroke patients: a 2-month follow-up, randomized, controlled study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2017;40:363–367. doi: 10.3233/NRE-161424.
    1. Wall A, Borg J, Vreede K, Palmcrantz S. A randomized controlled study incorporating an electromechanical gait machine, the Hybrid Assistive Limb, in gait training of patients with severe limitations in walking in the subacute phase after stroke. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0229707. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229707.
    1. Moucheboeuf G, Griffier R, Gasq D, Glize B, Bouyer L, Dehail P, et al. Effects of robotic gait training after stroke: a meta-analysis. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;63:518–534. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2020.02.008.
    1. Klassen TD, Dukelow SP, Bayley MT, Benavente O, Hill MD, Krassioukov A, et al. Higher doses improve walking recovery during stroke inpatient rehabilitation. Stroke. 2020;51:2639–2648. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029245.
    1. Hornby TG, Holleran CL, Hennessy PW, Leddy AL, Connolly M, Camardo J, et al. Variable intensive early walking poststroke (VIEWS): a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30:440–450. doi: 10.1177/1545968315604396.
    1. Lefeber N, De Keersmaecker E, Henderix S, Michielsen M, Kerckhofs E, Swinnen E. Physiological responses and perceived exertion during robot-assisted and body weight–supported gait after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2018;32:1043–1054. doi: 10.1177/1545968318810810.
    1. Lefeber N, De Buyzer S, Dassen N, De Keersmaecker E, Kerckhofs E, Swinnen E. Energy consumption and cost during walking with different modalities of assistance after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42:1650–1666. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1531943.
    1. Hornby TG, Holleran CL, Leddy AL, Hennessy P, Leech KA, Connolly M, et al. Feasibility of focused stepping practice during inpatient rehabilitation poststroke and potential contributions to mobility outcomes. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:923–932. doi: 10.1177/1545968315572390.
    1. Ardestani MM, Kinnaird CR, Henderson CE, Hornby TG. Compensation or recovery? Altered kinetics and neuromuscular synergies following high-intensity stepping training poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019;33:47–58. doi: 10.1177/1545968318817825.
    1. Peters S, Lim SB, Louie DR, Yang CL, Eng JJ. Passive, yet not inactive: robotic exoskeleton walking increases cortical activation dependent on task. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020;17:107. doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00739-6.
    1. Hsu CJ, Kim J, Roth EJ, Rymer WZ, Wu M. Forced use of the paretic leginduced by a constraint force applied to the nonparetic leg in individuals poststroke during walking. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:1042–1052. doi: 10.1177/1545968317740972.
    1. Louie DR. Walking once again: use of a robotic exoskeleton during subacute stroke rehabilitation to promote functional recovery. University of British Columbia; 2021. .
    1. Mortenson WB, Pysklywec A, Chau L, Prescott M, Townson A. Therapists’ experience of training and implementing an exoskeleton in a rehabilitation centre. Disabil Rehabil. 2020 doi: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1789765.
    1. Read E, Woolsey C, McGibbon CA, O’Connell C. Physiotherapists’ experiences using the Ekso bionic exoskeleton with patients in a neurological rehabilitation hospital: a qualitative study. Rehabil Res Pract. 2020;2020:2939573.
    1. McHugh G, Swain ID. A comparison between reported therapy staffing levels and the department of health therapy staffing guidelines for stroke rehabilitation: a national survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:1–9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-216.
    1. Liu L, Miguel Cruz A, Rios Rincon A, Buttar V, Ranson Q, Goertzen D. What factors determine therapists’ acceptance of new technologies for rehabilitation—a study using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37:447–455. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.923529.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner