Search

Background . Robot-assisted therapy provides high-intensity arm rehabilitation that can significantly reduce stroke-related upper extremity (UE) deficits. Motor improvement has been shown at the joints trained, but generalization to real-world function has not been profound. Objective . To investigate the efficacy of robot-assisted therapy combined with therapist-assisted task training versus robot-assisted therapy alone on motor outcomes and use in participants with moderate to severe chronic stroke-related arm disability. Methods . This was a single-blind randomized controlled trial of two 12-week robot-assisted interventions; 45 participants were stratified by Fugl-Meyer (FMA) impairment (mean 21 ± 1.36) to 60 minutes of robot therapy (RT; n = 22) or 45 minutes of RT combined with 15 minutes therapist-assisted transition-to-task training (TTT; n = 23). The primary outcome was the mean FMA change at week 12 using a linear mixed-model analysis. A subanalysis included the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) and Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), with significance P <.05. Results . There was no significant 12-week difference in FMA change between groups, and mean FMA gains were 2.87 ± 0.70 and 4.81 ± 0.68 for RT and TTT, respectively. TTT had greater 12-week secondary outcome improvements in the log WMFT (-0.52 ± 0.06 vs -0.18 ± 0.06; P = .01) and SIS hand (20.52 ± 2.94 vs 8.27 ± 3.03; P = .03). Conclusion . Chronic UE motor deficits are responsive to intensive robot-assisted therapy of 45 or 60 minutes per session duration. The replacement of part of the robotic training with nonrobotic tasks did not reduce treatment effect and may benefit stroke-affected hand use and motor task performance.

Background and Purpose: Because robotic devices record the kinematics and kinetics of human movements with high resolution, we hypothesized that robotic measures collected longitudinally in patients after stroke would bear a significant relationship to standard clinical outcome measures and, therefore, might provide superior biomarkers., Methods: In patients with moderate-to-severe acute ischemic stroke, we used clinical scales and robotic devices to measure arm movement 7, 14, 21, 30, and 90 days after the event at 2 clinical sites. The robots are interactive devices that measure speed, position, and force so that calculated kinematic and kinetic parameters could be compared with clinical assessments., Results: Among 208 patients, robotic measures predicted well the clinical measures (cross-validated R(2) of modified Rankin scale=0.60; National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale=0.63; Fugl-Meyer=0.73; Motor Power=0.75). When suitably scaled and combined by an artificial neural network, the robotic measures demonstrated greater sensitivity in measuring the recovery of patients from day 7 to day 90 (increased standardized effect=1.47)., Conclusions: These results demonstrate that robotic measures of motor performance will more than adequately capture outcome, and the altered effect size will reduce the required sample size. Reducing sample size will likely improve study efficiency.

Background: This study tested in children with cerebral palsy (CP) whether motor habilitation resembles motor learning., Methods: Twelve children with hemiplegic CP ages 5 to 12 years with moderate to severe motor impairments underwent a 16-session robot-mediated planar therapy program to improve upper limb reach, with a focus on shoulder and elbow movements. Participants were trained to execute point-to-point movements (with robot assistance) with the affected arm and were evaluated (without robot assistance) in trained (point-to-point) and untrained (circle-drawing) conditions. Outcomes were measured at baseline, midpoint, immediately after the program, and 1 month postcompletion. Outcome measures were the Fugl-Meyer (FM), Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test (QUEST), and Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) scores; parent questionnaire; and robot-based kinematic metrics. To assess whether learning best characterizes motor habilitation in CP, the authors quantified (a) improvement on trained tasks at completion of training (acquisition) and 1 month following completion (retention) and (b) quantified generalization of improvement to untrained tasks., Results: After robotic intervention, the authors found significant gains in the FM, QUEST, and parent questionnaire. Robot-based evaluations demonstrated significant improvement in trained movements and that improvement was sustained at follow-up. Furthermore, children improved their performance in untrained movements indicating generalization., Conclusions: Motor habilitation in CP exhibits some traits of motor learning. Optimal treatment may not require an extensive repertoire of tasks but rather a select set to promote generalization.

Investigators have demonstrated that a variety of intensive movement training protocols for persistent upper limb paralysis in patients with chronic stroke (6 months or more after stroke) improve motor outcome. This randomized controlled study determined in patients with upper limb motor impairment after chronic stroke whether movement therapy delivered by a robot or by a therapist using an intensive training protocol was superior. Robotic training (n = 11) and an intensive movement protocol (n = 10) improved the impairment measures of motor outcome significantly and comparably; there were no significant changes in disability measures. Motor gains were maintained at the 3-month evaluation after training. These data contribute to the growing awareness that persistent impairments in those with chronic stroke may not reflect exhausted capacity for improvement. These new protocols, rendered by either therapist or robot, can be standardized, tested, and replicated, and potentially will contribute to rational activity-based programs.

Objective: The aim of the study was to present a systematic review of studies that investigate the effects of robot-assisted therapy on motor and functional recovery in patients with stroke., Methods: A database of articles published up to October 2006 was compiled using the following Medline key words: cerebral vascular accident, cerebral vascular disorders, stroke, paresis, hemiplegia, upper extremity, arm, and robot. References listed in relevant publications were also screened. Studies that satisfied the following selection criteria were included: (1) patients were diagnosed with cerebral vascular accident; (2) effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb were investigated; (3) the outcome was measured in terms of motor and/or functional recovery of the upper paretic limb; and (4) the study was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). For each outcome measure, the estimated effect size (ES) and the summary effect size (SES) expressed in standard deviation units (SDU) were calculated for motor recovery and functional ability (activities of daily living [ADLs]) using fixed and random effect models. Ten studies, involving 218 patients, were included in the synthesis. Their methodological quality ranged from 4 to 8 on a (maximum) 10-point scale., Results: Meta-analysis showed a nonsignificant heterogeneous SES in terms of upper limb motor recovery. Sensitivity analysis of studies involving only shoulder-elbow robotics subsequently demonstrated a significant homogeneous SES for motor recovery of the upper paretic limb. No significant SES was observed for functional ability (ADL)., Conclusion: As a result of marked heterogeneity in studies between distal and proximal arm robotics, no overall significant effect in favor of robot-assisted therapy was found in the present meta-analysis. However, subsequent sensitivity analysis showed a significant improvement in upper limb motor function after stroke for upper arm robotics. No significant improvement was found in ADL function. However, the administered ADL scales in the reviewed studies fail to adequately reflect recovery of the paretic upper limb, whereas valid instruments that measure outcome of dexterity of the paretic arm and hand are mostly absent in selected studies. Future research into the effects of robot-assisted therapy should therefore distinguish between upper and lower robotics arm training and concentrate on kinematical analysis to differentiate between genuine upper limb motor recovery and functional recovery due to compensation strategies by proximal control of the trunk and upper limb.

Objective: To examine retrospectively the recovery of patients engaged in robotic research during a 6 to 7-week course of inpatient rehabilitation. Because timing of the Interim evaluation at 3 1/2 weeks was comparable to the present length of inpatient stroke rehabilitation, the authors assessed whether significant gains in motor abilities occurred after the time when most stroke patients today are discharged home., Methods: Fifty-six inpatients with a single, unilateral stroke were randomly assigned to a robot therapy or robot exposure group. Therapists blinded to group assignment administered the Fugl-Meyer, Motor Status Score, and MRC motor power test., Results: Significant improvements in upper-limb motor abilities occurred throughout a period approximately twice the present length of stay in inpatient rehabilitation. However, in the latter half of this period, patients who received conventional therapy showed little improvement, whereas patients who received robot training plus conventional therapy continued to improve., Conclusion: Further opportunities for recovery after stroke are possible by extending intensive therapy beyond present inpatient rehabilitation stays.

Background: Intensive robot-assisted arm training in the chronic phase of stroke recovery can lead to clinical improvement. Combinatorial therapeutic approaches are sought to further optimize stroke recovery. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is one candidate to combine with robotic training, as transient increases in excitability and improvements in motor behavior have separately been reported. Objective: To determine whether tDCS, delivered prior to robotic training, could augment clinical improvement. Methods: We conducted a dual-site, randomized controlled trial in 82 chronic ischemic stroke patients (inclusion > 6 m post-injury, dominant hemisphere, first stroke; residual hemiparesis) who were split into two groups to receive tDCS (M1-SO montage, anode ipsilesional, 5×7 cm electrodes, 2 mA, 20 mins) or sham tDCS, prior to robotic upper-limb training (12 weeks; 36 sessions; shoulder-elbow robot or wrist robot on alternating sessions). The primary end-point was taken after 12 weeks of training, and assessed with the Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer impairment scale (FM). Corticomotor conduction was assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Results: For the combined group (n = 82; post-training) robotic training increased the FM by 7.36 points compared to baseline (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the FM increase between the tDCS and sham groups (6.97 and 7.73 respectively, p = 0.46). In both groups, clinically meaningful improvement (≥5 points) from baseline was evident in the majority of patients (56/77), was sustained six months later (54/72), and could be attained in severe, moderate and mild baseline hemiparesis. Clinical improvement was associated with increased excitability in the affected hemisphere as assessed by resting motor threshold (pre-post p = 0.029; pre-post 6 months p = 0.029), but not with threshold-adjusted assessment of MEP amplitude (pre-post p = 0.09; pre-post 6 months p = 0.15). Participants with motor evoked potentials were more likely to improve clinically than those without (17/18, 94%, versus 39/59, 66%, p = 0.018). Conclusions: Our study confirms the benefit of intensive robot-assisted training in stroke recovery, and indicates that conventional tDCS does not confer further advantage to robotic training. We also showed that corticospinal integrity, as assessed by TMS, is a predictor of clinically meaningful response to intensive arm therapy in chronic stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Robotics and related technologies have begun to realize their promise to improve the delivery of rehabilitation therapy. However, the mechanism by which they enhance recovery remains unclear. Ultimately, recovery depends on biology, yet the details of the recovery process remain largely unknown; a deeper understanding is important to accelerate refinements of robotic therapy or suggest new approaches. Fortunately, robots provide an excellent instrument platform from which to study recovery at the behavioral level. This article reviews some initial insights about the process of upper-limb behavioral recovery that have emerged from our work. Evidence to date suggests that the form of therapy may be more important than its intensity: muscle strengthening offers no advantage over movement training. Passive movement is insufficient; active participation is required. Progressive training based on measures of movement coordination yields substantially improved outcomes. Together these results indicate that movement coordination rather than muscle activation may be the most appropriate focus for robotic therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Twelve moderately to severely involved chronic stroke survivors (>12 mo) were randomized to one of two treatments: robotics and motor learning (ROB-ML) or functional neuromuscular stimulation and motor learning (FNS-ML). Treatment was 5 h/d, 5 d/wk for 12 wk. ROB-ML group had 1.5 h per session devoted to robotics shoulder and elbow (S/E) training. FNSML had 1.5 h per session devoted to functional neuromuscular stimulation (surface electrodes) for wrist and hand (W/H) flexors/extensors. The primary outcome measure was the functional measure Arm Motor Ability Test (AMAT). Secondary measures were AMAT-S/E and AMAT-W/H, Fugl-Meyer (FM) upper-limb coordination, and the motor control measures of target accuracy (TA) and smoothness of movement (SM). ROB-ML produced significant gains in AMAT, AMAT-S/E, FM upper-limb coordination, TA, and SM. FNS-ML produced significant gains in AMAT-W/H and FM upper-limb coordination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This pilot study tested the effectiveness of an intense, short-term upper-limb robotic therapy for improvement in motor outcomes among chronic stroke patients. We enrolled 30 subjects with upper-limb deficits due to stroke of at least 6 mo duration and with a Motor Power Assessment grade of 3 or less. Over 3 wk, 18 sessions of robot-assisted task-specific therapy were delivered with the use of a robotic exercise device that simulates a conventional therapy known as skateboard therapy. Primary outcome measures included reliable, validated impairment and disability measures of upper-limb motor function. Statistically significant improvements were observed for severely impaired participants when we compared baseline and posttreatment outcomes (p < 0.05). These results are important because they indicate that improvement is not limited to those with moderate impairments but is possible among severely impaired chronic stroke patients as well. Moderately and severely impaired patients in our study were able to tolerate a massed-practice therapy paradigm with intensive, frequent, and repetitive treatment. This information is useful in determining the optimal target population, intensity, and duration of robotic therapy and sample size for a planned larger trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Loss of arm function is a common problem after stroke. Robot-assisted training might improve arm function and activities of daily living. We compared the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted training using the MIT-Manus robotic gym with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme based on repetitive functional task practice and with usual care.Methods: RATULS was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at four UK centres. Stroke patients aged at least 18 years with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years after their first stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive robot-assisted training, EULT, or usual care. Robot-assisted training and EULT were provided for 45 min, three times per week for 12 weeks. Randomisation was internet-based using permuted block sequences. Treatment allocation was masked from outcome assessors but not from participants or therapists. The primary outcome was upper limb function success (defined using the Action Research Arm Test [ARAT]) at 3 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN69371850.Findings: Between April 14, 2014, and April 30, 2018, 770 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either robot-assisted training (n=257), EULT (n=259), or usual care (n=254). The primary outcome of ARAT success was achieved by 103 (44%) of 232 patients in the robot-assisted training group, 118 (50%) of 234 in the EULT group, and 85 (42%) of 203 in the usual care group. Compared with usual care, robot-assisted training (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·17 [98·3% CI 0·70-1·96]) and EULT (aOR 1·51 [0·90-2·51]) did not improve upper limb function; the effects of robot-assisted training did not differ from EULT (aOR 0·78 [0·48-1·27]). More participants in the robot-assisted training group (39 [15%] of 257) and EULT group (33 [13%] of 259) had serious adverse events than in the usual care group (20 [8%] of 254), but none were attributable to the intervention.Interpretation: Robot-assisted training and EULT did not improve upper limb function after stroke compared with usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation. These results do not support the use of robot-assisted training as provided in this trial in routine clinical practice.Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]