Robotic Rehabilitation and Multimodal Instrumented Assessment of Post-stroke Elbow Motor Functions-A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol

Alessandro Pilla, Emilio Trigili, Zach McKinney, Chiara Fanciullacci, Chiara Malasoma, Federico Posteraro, Simona Crea, Nicola Vitiello, Alessandro Pilla, Emilio Trigili, Zach McKinney, Chiara Fanciullacci, Chiara Malasoma, Federico Posteraro, Simona Crea, Nicola Vitiello

Abstract

Background: The reliable assessment, attribution, and alleviation of upper-limb joint stiffness are essential clinical objectives in the early rehabilitation from stroke and other neurological disorders, to prevent the progression of neuromuscular pathology and enable proactive physiotherapy toward functional recovery. However, the current clinical evaluation and treatment of this stiffness (and underlying muscle spasticity) are severely limited by their dependence on subjective evaluation and manual limb mobilization, thus rendering the evaluation imprecise and the treatment insufficiently tailored to the specific pathologies and residual capabilities of individual patients. Methods: To address these needs, the proposed clinical trial will employ the NEUROExos Elbow Module (NEEM), an active robotic exoskeleton, for the passive mobilization and active training of elbow flexion and extension in 60 sub-acute and chronic stroke patients with motor impairments (hemiparesis and/or spasticity) of the right arm. The study protocol is a randomized controlled trial consisting of a 4-week functional rehabilitation program, with both clinical and robotically instrumented assessments to be conducted at baseline and post-treatment. The primary outcome measures will be a set of standard clinical scales for upper limb spasticity and motor function assessment, including the Modified Ashworth Scale and Fugl-Meyer Index, to confirm the safety and evaluate the efficacy of robotic rehabilitation in reducing elbow stiffness and improving function. Secondary outcomes will include biomechanical, muscular activity, and motor performance parameters extracted from instrumented assessments using the NEEM along with synchronous EMG recordings. Conclusions: This randomized controlled trial aims to validate an innovative instrumented methodology for clinical spasticity assessment and functional rehabilitation, relying on the precision and accuracy of an elbow exoskeleton combined with EMG recordings and the expertise of a physiotherapist, thus complementing and maximizing the benefits of both practices. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04484571.

Keywords: exoskeleton; functional rehabilitation; instrumented spasticity assessment; joint stiffness; robotic rehabilitation; stroke; upper limb.

Copyright © 2020 Pilla, Trigili, McKinney, Fanciullacci, Malasoma, Posteraro, Crea and Vitiello.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Protocol overview—Treatment Group (TG) patients are divided in two exercise levels based on the upper Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) score. Both groups conduct an initial assessment (T0) followed by 4 weeks−20 days treatment therapy, concluding with an additional assessment session (T1).
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) NEUROExos Elbow Module platform, including: passive regulations to adjust the height and orientation for each patient; actuation unit; wheeled platform to move the device in the 3-D workspace; graphical user interface (GUI) control via a laptop. (B) Detail of the elbow module.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Example of an experimental setup. The patient, donning the exoskeleton and with electrodes positioned on the impaired arm, follows the reference angle (orange) depicted on the screen while keeping the actual joint angle (blue) as close as possible.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(A) Each exercise block consists of ramp/sigmoidal movements from the maximum ROM angle to the minimum, followed by a Static Hold time interval where the patient is asked to maintain the given position. Movement is then inverted and repeated with the same modality until the number of performed cycles nc equals the desired number of movements N. (B) Workflow for the robotic assessment and (C) treatment procedures.

References

    1. Canning CG, Louise A, O'Dwyer N. Slowness to develop force contributes to weakness after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (1999) 80:66–70. 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90309-X
    1. Louise AC. Canning G, Sheau-Ling L. Stroke patients have selective muscle weakness in shortened range. Brain. (2003) 126:724–31. 10.1093/brain/awg066
    1. Sommerfeld DK, Eek EU, Svensson AK, Holmqvist LW, Von Arbin HM. Spasticity after stroke: its occurrence and association with motor impairments and activity limitations. Stroke. (2004) 35:134–9. 10.1161/01.STR.0000105386.05173.5E
    1. Francisco GE, McGuire JR. Poststroke spasticity management. Stroke. (2012) 43:3132–6. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.639831
    1. Lance J. Spasticity: Disordered Motor Control. Chicago, IL: Year Book Medical Publishers; (1980)
    1. Harlaar J. Diagnosis and treatment of‘ spasticity and stiff muscles. EBioMedicine. (2016) 9:23–4. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.05.034
    1. Smania N, Picelli A, Munari D, Geroin C, Ianes P, Waldner A, et al. . Rehabilitation procedures in the management of spasticity. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. (2010) 46:423–38.
    1. Barnes MP, Johnson GR. Upper Motor Neurone Syndrome and Spasticity: Clinical Management and Neurophysiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; (2008). 10.1017/CBO9780511544866
    1. Fazekas G, Horvath M, Troznai T, Toth A. Robot-mediated upper limb physiotherapy for patients with spastic hemiparesis: a preliminary study. J Rehabil Med. (2007) 39:580–2. 10.2340/16501977–0087
    1. Posteraro F, Crea S, Mazzoleni S, Berteanu M, Ciobanu I, Vitiello N, et al. . Technologically-advanced assessment of upper-limb spasticity: a pilot study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. (2017) 54:536–5. 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04815-8
    1. Crea S, Cempini M, Mazzoleni S, Carrozza MC, Posteraro F, Vitiello N. Phase-II clinical validation of a powered exoskeleton for the treatment of elbow spasticity. Front Neurosci. (2017) 12:261. 10.3389/fnins.2017.00261
    1. Frisoli A, Procopio C, Chisari C, Creatini I, Bonfiglio L, Bergamasco M, et al. . Positive effects of robotic exoskeleton training of upper limb reaching movements after stroke. J NeuroEng Rehabil. (2012) 9:36. 10.1186/1743–0003-9–36
    1. Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R, Bates B, Cherney LR, Cramer SC, et al. . Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American heart association/American stroke association. Stroke. (2016) 47:e98–169. 10.1161/STR.0000000000000098
    1. van den Noort JC, Bar-On L, Aertbeliën E, Harlaar J, Braendvik SM, Broström EW, et al. . European consensus on the concepts and measurement of the pathophysiological neuromuscular responses to passive muscle stretch. Eur J Neurol. (2017) 24:981–e38. 10.1111/ene.13322
    1. Biering-Sorensen F, Nielsen J, Klinge K. Spasticity-assessment: a review. Spinal Cord. (2006) 44:708–22. 10.1038/sj.sc.3101928
    1. Silva M, Silva A, Naves E, Palomari E, Soares A. An improved approach for measuring the tonic stretch reflex response of spastic muscles. Comput Biol Med. (2017) 80:166–74. 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2016.12.001
    1. M. Blackburn, van Vliet P, Mockett S. Reliability of measurements obtained with the modified Ashworth scale in the lower extremities of people with stroke. Phys Phys Ther. (2002) 82:25–34. 10.1093/ptj/82.1.25
    1. Pandyan A, Johnson G, Price C, Curless R, Barnes M, Rodgers H. A review of the properties and limitations of the Ashworth and modified Ashworth scales as measures of spasticity. Clin Rehabil. (1999) 13:373–83. 10.1191/026921599677595404
    1. Li F, Wu Y, Li X. Test-retest reliability and inter-rater reliability of the modified tardieu scale and the modified Ashworth scale in hemiplegic patients with stroke. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. (2014) 50:9–15
    1. Fleuren J, Voerman G, Erren-Wolters CV, Snoek GJ, Rietman JS, Hermens HJ, et al. . Stop using the Ashworth scale for the assessment of spasticity. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. (2010) 81:46–52. 10.1136/jnnp.2009.177071
    1. Raghavan P. Upper limb motor impairment after stroke. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 26, (2015) 4:599–610. 10.1016/j.pmr.2015.06.008
    1. Sin M, Kim WS, Cho K, Cho S, Paik NJ. Improving the test-retest and inter-rater reliability for stretch reflex measurements using an isokinetic device in stroke patients with mild to moderate elbow spasticity. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. (2018) 39:120–7. 10.1016/j.jelekin.2018.01.012
    1. Colombo R, Pisano F, Micera S, Mazzone A, Delconte C, Carrozza M, et al. . Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. (2005) 13:311–24. 10.1109/TNSRE.2005.848352
    1. Celik O. Normalized movement quality measures for therapeutic robots strongly correlate with clinical motor impairment measures. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. (2010) 18:433–44. 10.1109/TNSRE.2010.2047600
    1. Bosecker C. Kinematic robot-based evaluation scales and clinical counterparts to measure upper limb motor performance in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2010) 24:62–9. 10.1177/1545968309343214
    1. Lambercy O, Lunenburger L, Gassert R, Bolliger M. Neurorehabilitation Technology. London, UK: Limited; (2012). p. 443–56. 10.1007/978-1-4471-2277-7_24
    1. Loureiro RC, Harwin WS. Advances in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: a technology push. Med Bio Eng Comput. (2011) 49:1103–18. 10.1007/s11517–011-0797–0
    1. Gopura R, Bandara D, Kiguchi K, Mann G. Developments in hardware systems of active upper-limb exoskeleton robots: a review. Robot Auton Syst. (2016) 75:203–20. 10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.001
    1. Vitiello N, Cempini M, Crea S, Giovacchini F, Cortese M, Moisè M, et al. Functional design of a powered elbow orthosis toward its clinical employment. IEEE ASME Trans. Mechatron. (2016) 21:1880–91. 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2558646
    1. Qian Q, Hu X, Lai Q, Ng S, Zheng Y, Poon W. Early stroke rehabilitation of the upper limb assisted with an electromyography-driven neuromuscular electrical stimulation-robotic arm. Front Neurol. (2017) 8:447. 10.3389/fneur.2017.00447
    1. Vitiello N, Lenzi T, Roccella S, de Rossi S, Cattin E, Giovacchini F, et al. Neuroexos. A powered elbow exoskeleton for physical rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Robot. (2013) 29:220–35. 10.1109/TRO.2012.2211492
    1. Given J, Dewald J, Rymer W. Joint dependent passive stiffness in paretic and contralateral limbs of spastic patients with hemiparetic stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. (1995) 59:271–9. 10.1136/jnnp.59.3.271
    1. Riener R, Brunschweiler A, Lunenburger L, Colombo G. Robot-supported spasticity evaluation. In: 9th Annual Conference of the International FES Society. Bournemouth: (2004).
    1. Balasubramanian S, Melendez-Calderon A, Roby-Brami A, Burdet E. On the analysis of movement smoothness. J NeuroEng Rehabil. (2015) 12:121. 10.1186/s12984–015-0090–9
    1. Gulde P, Hermsdörfer J. Smoothness metrics in complex movement tasks. Front Neurol. (2018) 9:615. 10.3389/fneur.2018.00615
    1. Rincòn Montes V, Quijano Y, Chong Quero JE, Villanueva Ayala D, Pérez Moreno JC. Comparison of 4 different smoothness metrics for the quantitative assessment of movement's quality in the upper limb of subjects with cerebral palsy. In: Pan American Health Care Exchanges, PAHCE. Brasilia: (2014).
    1. Mullick A, Musampa N, Feldman A, Levin M. Stretch reflex spatial threshold measure discriminates between spasticity and rigidity. Clin Neurophysiol. (2013) 124:740–51. 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.10.008
    1. Patten C, Condliffe E, Dairaghi C, Lum P. Concurrent neuromechanical and functional gains following upper-extremity power training post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. (2013) 10:1. 10.1186/1743–0003-10–1
    1. Duret C, Grosmaire A-G, Krebs HI. Robot-assisted therapy in upper extremity hemiparesis: overview of an evidence-based approach. Front Neurol. (2019) 10:412. 10.3389/fneur.2019.00412
    1. Posteraro F, Mazzoleni S, Aliboni S, Cesqui B, Battaglia A CMC, Dario P, et al. . Upper limb spasticity reduction following active training: a robot-mediated study in patients with chronic hemiparesis. J Rehabil Med. (2010) 42:279–81. 10.2340/16501977–0500
    1. Blank A, French J, Pehlivan A, O'Malley M. Current trends in robot-assisted upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: promoting patient engagement in therapy. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep. (2014) 68:184–95. 10.1007/s40141–014-0056-z
    1. Krebs H, Volpe B, Hogan N. A working model of stroke recovery from rehabilitation robotics practitioners. J Neuroeng Rehabil. (2009) 6:6. 10.1186/1743–0003-6–6
    1. Hogan N, Krebs H, Rohrer B, Palazzolo J, Dipietro L, Fasoli S, et al. . Motions or muscles? Some behavioral factors underlying robotic assistance of motor recovery. J Rehabil Res Dev. (2006) 43:605–18. 10.1682/JRRD.2005.06.0103
    1. Ferraro M, Palazzolo J, Krol J. Roboti-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke. Neurology. (2003) 61:1604–7. 10.1212/01.WNL.0000095963.00970.68
    1. Thibaut A, Chatelle C, Ziegler E, Bruno M-A, Laureys S, Gosseries O. Spasticity after stroke: physiology, assessment and treatment. Brain Inj. (2013) 27:1093–105. 10.3109/02699052.2013.804202

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever