Search

To investigate the sustainability of Robot-assisted upper limb therapy (RT-UL) as part of routine occupational therapy and physiotherapy clinical practice. Two separate audits, 12 months apart, of RT-UL computer data records were undertaken to determine sustainability in a subacute rehabilitation unit. Records of the two audits were compared in terms of the number of early subacute stroke survivors using RT-UL, the number of RT-UL sessions, duration of RT-UL sessions, and disciplines prescribing RT-UL. During Audit 1 58% (n = 18) of stroke survivors received RT-UL compared to 50% (n = 7) in Audit 2. The total number of RT-UL sessions reduced between audits (148 vs. 36 sessions) reflecting the overall reduction in admission rates for stroke survivors. There was no significant difference between audits in the average number of RT-UL sessions per patient (p = 0.203) nor the length of sessions (p = 0.762). Patients engaged in active therapy more than three-quarters of the time when on the robotic device. Physiotherapists were the primary prescribers of RT-UL when compared to occupational therapists. RT-UL was in continued and regular use with stroke survivors 2 years after initial implementation within an inpatient rehabilitation setting. RT-UL practice was intensive and used routinely with patients. RT-UL is a sustainable and intensive intervention for stroke survivors within an inpatient rehabilitative setting. The cost-benefits of RT-UL should be evaluated from the perspective of the whole rehabilitation service not just at an individual patient level. RT-UL may be considered a "bridging" form of UL practice for those with more limited active UL movement until there is sufficient UL movement and power for more complex real-world task-specific practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine which potential contributing factors are associated with upper limb associated reaction (AR) expression in individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). Forty-two participants underwent three-dimensional motion analysis at self-selected walking speed to generate the AR outcome measure, quantifying their upper limb kinematic deviation compared to healthy controls. Clinical assessment included: upper and lower limb hypertonicity, spasticity and strength, balance, dynamic walking stability, arm and leg function, anxiety, arm pain/discomfort, and fear of falling. Significant, moderate-to-strong correlations (r = 0.42–0.74, p < 0.05) existed between upper limb ARs and both hypertonicity and spasticity of the upper limb muscles and the knee extensors. Significant, moderate correlations to ARs (r = 0.42–0.59, p < 0.05) existed for balance, dynamic stability, upper limb strength, and arm function. The severity of AR was significantly different between those with and without hypertonicity of the four tested upper limb muscles, elbow and long finger flexor spasticity, knee extensor spasticity, and reduced dynamic stability (p < 0.05; effect sizes ≥0.80). However, these contributing factors were not present in all participants. Associated reactions are complex and multi-factorial. There were several significant correlations indicating that factors may influence AR severity. While positive upper motor neuron syndrome features should be prioritised for clinical assessment, these factors are not prerequisites for ARs. Upper limb associated reactions are a complex and multi-factorial phenomenon. Upper limb muscle hypertonicity and spasticity should be prioritised for assessment; however, they are not prerequisites for associated reactions. Hypertonicity and spasticity should be differentiated as they may have differing relationships to associated reactions. Knee extensor hypertonicity and spasticity, postural stability, upper limb strength, and arm function may also be contributing factors to consider. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]