Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke |
Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, Majmundar M, van der Loos M |
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002 Jul;83(7):952-959 |
clinical trial |
6/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of robot-assisted movement training with conventional techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial, 6-month follow-up. SETTING: A Department of Veterans Affairs rehabilitation research and development center. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive sample of 27 subjects with chronic hemiparesis (> 6 mo after cerebrovascular accident) randomly allocated to group. INTERVENTIONS: All subjects received twenty-four 1-hour sessions over 2 months. Subjects in the robot group practiced shoulder and elbow movements while assisted by a robot manipulator. Subjects in the control group received neurodevelopmental therapy (targeting proximal upper limb function) and 5 minutes of exposure to the robot in each session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor impairment, FIMtrade mark instrument, and biomechanic measures of strength and reaching kinematics. Clinical evaluations were performed by a therapist blinded to group assignments. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the robot group had larger improvements in the proximal movement portion of the Fugl-Meyer test after 1 month of treatment (p < 0.05) and also after 2 months of treatment (p < 0.05). The robot group had larger gains in strength (p < 0.02) and larger increases in reach extent (p < 0.01) after 2 months of treatment. At the 6-month follow-up, the groups no longer differed in terms of the Fugl-Meyer test (p > 0.30); however, the robot group had larger improvements in the FIM (p < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional treatment, robot-assisted movements had advantages in terms of clinical and biomechanical measures. Further research into the use of robotic manipulation for motor rehabilitation is justified.
|