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

Dennis R Louie, William B Mortenson, Melanie Durocher, Robert Teasell, Jennifer Yao, Janice J Eng, Dennis R Louie, William B Mortenson, Melanie Durocher, Robert Teasell, Jennifer Yao, Janice J Eng

Abstract

Background: The ability to walk is commonly reported as a top rehabilitation priority for individuals after a stroke. However, not all individuals with stroke are able to practice walking, especially those who require more assistance from their therapist to do so. Powered robotic exoskeletons are a new generation of robotic-assisted gait training devices, designed to assist lower extremity movement to allow repetitious overground walking practice. To date, minimal research has been conducted on the use of an exoskeleton for gait rehabilitation after stroke. The following research protocol aims to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability, and thus adoptability, of an exoskeleton-based gait rehabilitation program for individuals with stroke.

Methods: This research protocol describes a prospective, multi-center, mixed-methods study comprised of a randomized controlled trial and a nested qualitative study. Forty adults with subacute stroke will be recruited from three inpatient rehabilitation hospitals and randomized to receive either the exoskeleton-based gait rehabilitation program or usual physical therapy care. The primary outcome measure is the Functional Ambulation Category at post-intervention, and secondary outcomes include motor recovery, functional mobility, cognitive, and quality-of-life measures. Outcome data will be collected at baseline, post-intervention, and at 6 months. The qualitative component will explore the experience and acceptability of using a powered robotic exoskeleton for stroke rehabilitation from the point of view of individuals with stroke and physical therapists. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with participants who receive the exoskeleton intervention, and with the therapists who provide the intervention. Qualitative data will be analyzed using interpretive description.

Discussion: This study will be the first mixed-methods study examining the adoptability of exoskeleton-based rehabilitation for individuals with stroke. It will provide valuable information regarding the efficacy of exoskeleton-based training for walking recovery and will shed light on how physical therapists and patients with stroke perceive the device. The findings will help guide the integration of robotic exoskeletons into clinical practice.

Trial registration: NCT02995265 (clinicaltrials.gov), Registered 16 December 2016.

Keywords: Clinical trial; Exoskeleton; Rehabilitation; Stroke; Walking.

Conflict of interest statement

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

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of mixed-methods study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Algorithm to continue or discontinue daily exoskeleton training

References

    1. Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJL. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet. 2006;367:1747–1757. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68770-9.
    1. Hankey GJ. Stroke. Lancet. 2017;389:641–654. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30962-X.
    1. Feigin VL, Roth GA, Naghavi M, Parmar P, Krishnamurthi R, Chugh S, et al. Global burden of stroke and risk factors in 188 countries, during 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2013. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15:913–924. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30073-4.
    1. Krueger H, Koot J, Hall RE, O’Callaghan C, Bayley M, Corbett D. Prevalence of individuals experiencing the effects of stroke in Canada: trends and projections. Stroke. 2015;46:2226–2231. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009616.
    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. Portelli R, Lowe D, Irwin P, Pearson M, Rudd AG. Institutionalization after stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19:97–108. doi: 10.1191/0269215505cr822oa.
    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. Pereira S, Foley N, Salter K, McClure JA, Meyer M, Brown J, et al. Discharge destination of individuals with severe stroke undergoing rehabilitation: a predictive model. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:727–731. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.902510.
    1. Bohannon RW, Andrews AW, Smith MB. Rehabilitation goals of patients with hemiplegia. Int J Rehabil Res. 1988;11:181–184. doi: 10.1097/00004356-198806000-00012.
    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. 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. Shum ST, Chiu JKW, Tsang CPL, Wong CHP, Tsang RCC, Ma SL, et al. Predicting walking function of patients one month poststroke using modified rivermead mobility index on admission. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;23:2117–2121. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.03.023.
    1. Billinger SA, Arena R, Bernhardt J, Eng JJ, Franklin BA, Johnson CM, et al. Physical activity and exercise recommendations for stroke survivors: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45:2532–2553. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000022.
    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. 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. Mehrholz J, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. What is the evidence so far? What have we learnt? Physiother. 2015;101:eS990–eS991. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.1851.
    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. 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. Duncan PW, Sullivan KJ, Behrman AL, Azen SP, Wu SS, Nadeau SE, et al. Body-weight–supported treadmill rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2026–2036. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1010790.
    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. 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. Postol N, Marquez J, Spartalis S, Bivard A, Spratt NJ. Do powered over-ground lower limb robotic exoskeletons affect outcomes in the rehabilitation of people with acquired brain injury? Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14:764–775. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2018.1499137.
    1. Goffredo M, Guanziroli E, Pournajaf S, Gaffuri M, Gasperini G, Filoni S, et al. Overground wearable powered exoskeleton for gait training in subacute stroke subjects: clinical and gait assessments. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2019. 10.23736/S1973-9087.19.05574-6.
    1. Turchetti G, Vitiello N, Trieste L, Romiti S, Geisler E, Micera S. Why effectiveness of robot-mediated neurorehabilitation does not necessarily influence its adoption. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2014;7:143–153. doi: 10.1109/RBME.2014.2300234.
    1. Zhang W, Creswell J. The use of “mixing” procedure of mixed methods in health services research. Med Care. 2013;51:e51–e57. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824642fd.
    1. Frank M, Conzelmann M, Engelter S. Prediction of discharge destination after neurological rehabilitation in stroke patients. Eur Neurol. 2010;63:227–233. doi: 10.1159/000279491.
    1. Kim SJ, Lee HJ, Hwang SW, Pyo H, Yang SP, Lim MH, et al. Clinical characteristics of proper robot-assisted gait training group in non-ambulatory subacute stroke patients. Ann Rehabil Med. 2016;40:183–189. doi: 10.5535/arm.2016.40.2.183.
    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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Duncan PW, Sullivan KJ, Behrman AL, Azen SP, Wu SS, Nadeau SE, et al. Protocol for the Locomotor experience applied post-stroke (LEAPS) trial: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Neurol. 2007;7:39. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-7-39.
    1. Haeuber E, Shaughnessy M, Forrester LW, Coleman KL, Macko RF. Accelerometer monitoring of home- and community-based ambulatory activity after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:1997–2001. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.11.035.
    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. 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. Hopman WM, Verner J. Quality of life during and after inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2003;34:801–805. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000057978.15397.6F.
    1. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke. 1995;26:982–989. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.26.6.982.
    1. Twisk J, Bosman L, Hoekstra T, Rijnhart J, Welten M, Heymans M. Different ways to estimate treatment effects in randomised controlled trials. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018;10:80–85. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.03.008.
    1. Barnes SA, Lindborg SR, Seaman JW. Multiple imputation techniques in small sample clinical trials. Stat Med. 2006;25:233–245. doi: 10.1002/sim.2231.
    1. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23:334–340. doi: 10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>;2-G.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2007;19:349–357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
    1. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 3. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2013.
    1. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018;52:1893–1907. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8.
    1. Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation. Qual Health Res. 2017;27:591–608. doi: 10.1177/1049732316665344.
    1. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27:425–478. doi: 10.2307/30036540.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. In: Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ, editors. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: research designs: quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. Washington: American Psychology Assocation; 2012. pp. 51–71.
    1. Morrow SL. Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol. 2005;52:250–260. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250.
    1. Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F. Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual Health Res. 2016;26:1802–1811. doi: 10.1177/1049732316654870.
    1. Langan J, Subryan H, Nwogu I, Cavuoto L. Reported use of technology in stroke rehabilitation by physical and occupational therapists. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13:641–647. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2017.1362043.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner