Effect of combined home-based, overground robotic-assisted gait training and usual physiotherapy on clinical functional outcomes in people with chronic stroke: A randomized controlled trial

Amy Wright, Keeron Stone, Louis Martinelli, Simon Fryer, Grace Smith, Danielle Lambrick, Lee Stoner, Simon Jobson, James Faulkner, Amy Wright, Keeron Stone, Louis Martinelli, Simon Fryer, Grace Smith, Danielle Lambrick, Lee Stoner, Simon Jobson, James Faulkner

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the effect of a home-based over-ground robotic-assisted gait training program using the AlterG Bionic Leg orthosis on clinical functional outcomes in people with chronic stroke.

Design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Home.

Participants: Thirty-four ambulatory chronic stroke patients who recieve usual physiotherapy.

Intervention: Usual physiotherapy plus either (1)10-week over-ground robotic-assisted gait training program (n = 16), using the device for ⩾30 minutes per day, or (2) control group (n = 18), 30 minutes of physical activity per day.

Measurements: The primary outcome was the Six-Minute Walk Test. Secondary outcomes included: Timed-Up-and-Go, Functional Ambulation Categories, Dynamic Gait Index and Berg Balance Scale. Physical activity and sedentary time were assessed using accelerometry. All measurements were completed at baseline, 10 and 22 weeks after baseline.

Results: Significant increases in walking distance were observed for the Six-Minute Walk Test between baseline and 10 weeks for over-ground robotic-assisted gait training (135 ± 81 m vs 158 ± 93 m, respectively; P ⩽ 0.001) but not for control (122 ± 92 m vs 119 ± 84 m, respectively). Findings were similar for Functional Ambulation Categories, Dynamic Gait Index and Berg Balance Scale (all P ⩽ 0.01). For over-ground robotic-assisted gait training, there were increases in time spent stepping, number of steps taken, number of sit-to-stand transitions, and reductions in time spent sitting/supine between baseline and 10 weeks (all P < 0.05). The differences observed in all of the aforementioned outcome measures were maintained at 22 weeks, 12 weeks after completing the intervention (all P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Over-ground robotic-assisted gait training combined with physiotherapy in chronic stroke patients led to significant improvements in clinical functional outcomes and physical activity compared to the control group. Improvements were maintained at 22 weeks.

Keywords: Stroke; home-based; rehabilitation; robotics.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: AlterG Bionic Leg orthoses were provided free of charge by AlterG (Fremont, CA), Alter G had no input or influence on the data analysis or manuscript preparation. There is no relationship between AlterG and the author L. Stoner (School of Sport & Exercise, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA).

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Front and side view of the over-ground robotic-assisted gait training device (Alter G Bionic Leg orthosis, Fremont, CA, USA).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Consort statement. FAC: Functional Ambulation Categories; O-RAGT: Over-ground Robotic-Assisted Gait Training Program using a wearable knee orthosis, Alter G Bionic leg.

References

    1. Cho JE, Yoo JS, Kim KE, et al.. Systematic review of appropriate robotic intervention for gait function in subacute stroke patients. Biomed Res Int 2018; 1: 1–11.
    1. Duschau-Wicke A, Caprez A, Riener R. Patient cooperative control increases active participation of individuals with SCI during robot-aided gait training. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2010; 7(1): 43.
    1. Goffredo M, Guanziroli E, Pournajaf S, et al.. Overground wearable powered exoskeleton for gait training in subacute stroke subjects: clinical and gait assessments. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2019; 55(6): 710–721.
    1. Byl NN. Mobility training using a bionic knee orthosis in patients in a poststroke chronic state: a case series. J Med Case Rep 2012; 6(1): 216.
    1. Wong CK, Bishop L, Stein J. A wearable robotic knee orthosis for gait training: a case-series of hemiparetic stroke survivors. Prosthetic Orthot Int 2012; 36(1): 113–120.
    1. Iida S, Kawakita D, Fujita T, et al.. Exercise using a robotic knee orthosis in stroke patients with hemiplegia. J Phys Ther Sci 2017; 29(11): 1920–1924.
    1. Stein J, Bishop L, Stein DJ, et al.. Gait training with a robotic leg brace after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 93(11): 987–994.
    1. Duncan PW, Sullivan KJ, Behrman AL, et al.. Body-weight-supported treadmill rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med 2011; 364(21): 2026–2036.
    1. Housley SN, Fitzgerald K, Butler AJ. Telerehabilitation robotics: overview of approaches and clinical outcomes. Rehabil Robotics 2018; 24: 333–346.
    1. Wright A, Stone K, Lambrick D, et al.. A community-based, bionic leg rehabilitation program for patients with chronic stroke: clinical trial protocol. J Stroke Cerebrovas Dis 2018; 27(2): 372–380.
    1. Gardner B, Lally P, Wardle J. Making health habitual: the psychology of ‘habit-formation’ and general practice. Brit J Gen Pract 2012; 62(605): 664–666.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c332.
    1. Rudd AG, Bowen A, Young G, et al.. National clinical guideline for stroke: 5th edition 2016. Report, Royal College of Physicians Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party, February 2017.
    1. Mehrholz J, Wagner K, Rutte K, et al.. Predictive validity and responsiveness of the functional ambulation category in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88(10): 1314–1319.
    1. Suresh KP. An overview of randomization techniques: an unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. J Hum Reprod Sci 2011; 4(1): 8–11.
    1. Liu J, Drutz C, Kumar R, et al.. Use of the six-minute walk test poststroke: is there a practice effect? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89(9): 1689–1692.
    1. Borg G. Borg’s perceived exertion and pan scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998.
    1. Flansbjer U, Holmback AM, Downham D, et al.. Reliability of gait performance tests in men and women with hemiparesis after stroke. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37(2): 75–82.
    1. Jonsdottir J, Cattaneo D. Reliability and validity of the dynamic gait index in persons with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88(11): 1410–1415.
    1. Stevenson TJ. Detecting change in patients with stroke using the Berg Balance Scale. Aust J Physiother 2001; 47(1): 29–38.
    1. Banks JL, Marotta CA. Outcomes validity and reliability of the modified rankin scale: implications for stroke clinical trials. Stroke 2007; 38(3): 1091–1096.
    1. Ivey FM, Stookey AD, Hafer-Macko CE, et al.. Higher treadmill training intensity to address functional aerobic impairment after stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovas Dis 2015; 24(11): 2539–2546.
    1. Richardson JTE. Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educ Res Rev 2011; 6(2): 135–147.
    1. Taveggia G, Borboni A, Mulé C, et al.. Conflicting results of robot-assisted versus usual gait training during post acute rehabilitation of stroke patients: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Rehabil Res 2016; 39(1): 29–55.
    1. Ng SS, Hui-Chan CW. The timed up & go test: its reliability and association with lower-limb impairments and locomotor capacities in people with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 1641–1641.
    1. Saunders DH, Greig CA, Young A, et al.. Physical fitness training for patients with stroke: an updated review. Stroke 2010; 41: e160–e161.
    1. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Med 2005; 2(8): e124.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する