Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Effectiveness of the A3 robot on lower extremity motor function in stroke patients: a prospective, randomized controlled trial [with consumer summary]
Zhang L-J, Wen X, Peng Y, Hu W, Liao H, Liu Z-C, Liu H-Y
World Journal of Clinical Cases 2024 Aug 26;12(24):5523-5533
clinical trial
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; 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*

BACKGROUND: The results of existing lower extremity robotics studies are conflicting, and few relevant clinical trials have examined short-term efficacy. In addition, most of the outcome indicators in existing studies are scales, which are not objective enough. We used the combination of objective instrument measurement and scale to explore the short-term efficacy of the lower limb A3 robot, to provide a clinical reference. AIM: To investigate the improvement of lower limb walking ability and balance in stroke treated by A3 lower limb robot. METHODS: Sixty stroke patients were recruited prospectively in a hospital and randomized into the A3 group and the control group. They received 30 min of A3 robotics training and 30 min of floor walking training in addition to 30 min of regular rehabilitation training. The training was performed five times a week, once a day, for 2 wk. The t-test or nonparametric test was used to compare the three-dimensional gait parameters and balance between the two groups before and after treatment. RESULTS: The scores of basic activities of daily living, Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale, FM balance meter, Fugl-Meyer Assessment scores, Rivermead Mobility Index, Stride speed, Stride length, and Time Up and Go test in the two groups were significantly better than before treatment (19.29 +/- 12.15 versus 3.52 +/- 4.34, 22.57 +/- 17.99 versus 4.07 +/- 2.51, 1.21 +/- 0.83 versus 0.18 +/- 0.40, 3.50 +/- 3.80 versus 0.96 +/- 2.08, 2.07 +/- 1.21 versus 0.41 +/- 0.57, 0.89 +/- 0.63 versus 0.11 +/- 0.32, 12.38 +/- 9.00 versus 2.80 +/- 3.43, 18.84 +/- 11.24 versus 3.80 +/- 10.83, 45.12 +/- 69.41 versus 8.41 +/- 10.20, 29.45 +/- 16.62 versus 8.68 +/- 10.74; p < 0.05). All outcome indicators were significantly better in the A3 group than in the control group, except the area of the balance parameter. CONCLUSION: For the short-term treatment of patients with subacute stroke, the addition of A3 robotic walking training to conventional physiotherapy appears to be more effective than the addition of ground-based walking training.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help