Cargando…
A comparison of the effects and usability of two exoskeletal robots with and without robotic actuation for upper extremity rehabilitation among patients with stroke: a single-blinded randomised controlled pilot study
BACKGROUND: Robotic rehabilitation of stroke survivors with upper extremity dysfunction may yield different outcomes depending on the robot type. Considering that excessive dependence on assistive force by robotic actuators may interfere with the patient’s active learning and participation, we hypot...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7574181/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33076952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-020-00763-6 |
_version_ | 1783597589949579264 |
---|---|
author | Park, Jin Ho Park, Gyulee Kim, Ha Yeon Lee, Ji-Yeong Ham, Yeajin Hwang, Donghwan Kwon, Suncheol Shin, Joon-Ho |
author_facet | Park, Jin Ho Park, Gyulee Kim, Ha Yeon Lee, Ji-Yeong Ham, Yeajin Hwang, Donghwan Kwon, Suncheol Shin, Joon-Ho |
author_sort | Park, Jin Ho |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Robotic rehabilitation of stroke survivors with upper extremity dysfunction may yield different outcomes depending on the robot type. Considering that excessive dependence on assistive force by robotic actuators may interfere with the patient’s active learning and participation, we hypothesised that the use of an active-assistive robot with robotic actuators does not lead to a more meaningful difference with respect to upper extremity rehabilitation than the use of a passive robot without robotic actuators. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the differences in the clinical and kinematic outcomes between active-assistive and passive robotic rehabilitation among stroke survivors. METHODS: In this single-blinded randomised controlled pilot trial, we assigned 20 stroke survivors with upper extremity dysfunction (Medical Research Council scale score, 3 or 4) to the active-assistive robotic intervention (ACT) and passive robotic intervention (PSV) groups in a 1:1 ratio and administered 20 sessions of 30-min robotic intervention (5 days/week, 4 weeks). The primary (Wolf Motor Function Test [WMFT]-score and -time: measures activity), and secondary (Fugl-Meyer Assessment [FMA] and Stroke Impact Scale [SIS] scores: measure impairment and participation, respectively; kinematic outcomes) outcome measures were determined at baseline, after 2 and 4 weeks of the intervention, and 4 weeks after the end of the intervention. Furthermore, we evaluated the usability of the robots through interviews with patients, therapists, and physiatrists. RESULTS: In both the groups, the WMFT-score and -time improved over the course of the intervention. Time had a significant effect on the WMFT-score and -time, FMA-UE, FMA-prox, and SIS-strength; group × time interaction had a significant effect on SIS-function and SIS-social participation (all, p < 0.05). The PSV group showed better improvement in participation and smoothness than the ACT group. In contrast, the ACT group exhibited better improvement in mean speed. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences between the two groups regarding the impairment and activity domains. However, the PSV robots were more beneficial than ACT robots regarding participation and smoothness. Considering the high cost and complexity of ACT robots, PSV robots might be more suitable for rehabilitation in stroke survivors capable of voluntary movement. Trial registration The trial was registered retrospectively on 14 March 2018 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03465267). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7574181 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75741812020-10-20 A comparison of the effects and usability of two exoskeletal robots with and without robotic actuation for upper extremity rehabilitation among patients with stroke: a single-blinded randomised controlled pilot study Park, Jin Ho Park, Gyulee Kim, Ha Yeon Lee, Ji-Yeong Ham, Yeajin Hwang, Donghwan Kwon, Suncheol Shin, Joon-Ho J Neuroeng Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: Robotic rehabilitation of stroke survivors with upper extremity dysfunction may yield different outcomes depending on the robot type. Considering that excessive dependence on assistive force by robotic actuators may interfere with the patient’s active learning and participation, we hypothesised that the use of an active-assistive robot with robotic actuators does not lead to a more meaningful difference with respect to upper extremity rehabilitation than the use of a passive robot without robotic actuators. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the differences in the clinical and kinematic outcomes between active-assistive and passive robotic rehabilitation among stroke survivors. METHODS: In this single-blinded randomised controlled pilot trial, we assigned 20 stroke survivors with upper extremity dysfunction (Medical Research Council scale score, 3 or 4) to the active-assistive robotic intervention (ACT) and passive robotic intervention (PSV) groups in a 1:1 ratio and administered 20 sessions of 30-min robotic intervention (5 days/week, 4 weeks). The primary (Wolf Motor Function Test [WMFT]-score and -time: measures activity), and secondary (Fugl-Meyer Assessment [FMA] and Stroke Impact Scale [SIS] scores: measure impairment and participation, respectively; kinematic outcomes) outcome measures were determined at baseline, after 2 and 4 weeks of the intervention, and 4 weeks after the end of the intervention. Furthermore, we evaluated the usability of the robots through interviews with patients, therapists, and physiatrists. RESULTS: In both the groups, the WMFT-score and -time improved over the course of the intervention. Time had a significant effect on the WMFT-score and -time, FMA-UE, FMA-prox, and SIS-strength; group × time interaction had a significant effect on SIS-function and SIS-social participation (all, p < 0.05). The PSV group showed better improvement in participation and smoothness than the ACT group. In contrast, the ACT group exhibited better improvement in mean speed. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences between the two groups regarding the impairment and activity domains. However, the PSV robots were more beneficial than ACT robots regarding participation and smoothness. Considering the high cost and complexity of ACT robots, PSV robots might be more suitable for rehabilitation in stroke survivors capable of voluntary movement. Trial registration The trial was registered retrospectively on 14 March 2018 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03465267). BioMed Central 2020-10-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7574181/ /pubmed/33076952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-020-00763-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Park, Jin Ho Park, Gyulee Kim, Ha Yeon Lee, Ji-Yeong Ham, Yeajin Hwang, Donghwan Kwon, Suncheol Shin, Joon-Ho A comparison of the effects and usability of two exoskeletal robots with and without robotic actuation for upper extremity rehabilitation among patients with stroke: a single-blinded randomised controlled pilot study |
title | A comparison of the effects and usability of two exoskeletal robots with and without robotic actuation for upper extremity rehabilitation among patients with stroke: a single-blinded randomised controlled pilot study |
title_full | A comparison of the effects and usability of two exoskeletal robots with and without robotic actuation for upper extremity rehabilitation among patients with stroke: a single-blinded randomised controlled pilot study |
title_fullStr | A comparison of the effects and usability of two exoskeletal robots with and without robotic actuation for upper extremity rehabilitation among patients with stroke: a single-blinded randomised controlled pilot study |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of the effects and usability of two exoskeletal robots with and without robotic actuation for upper extremity rehabilitation among patients with stroke: a single-blinded randomised controlled pilot study |
title_short | A comparison of the effects and usability of two exoskeletal robots with and without robotic actuation for upper extremity rehabilitation among patients with stroke: a single-blinded randomised controlled pilot study |
title_sort | comparison of the effects and usability of two exoskeletal robots with and without robotic actuation for upper extremity rehabilitation among patients with stroke: a single-blinded randomised controlled pilot study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7574181/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33076952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-020-00763-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT parkjinho acomparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT parkgyulee acomparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT kimhayeon acomparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT leejiyeong acomparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT hamyeajin acomparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT hwangdonghwan acomparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT kwonsuncheol acomparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT shinjoonho acomparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT parkjinho comparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT parkgyulee comparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT kimhayeon comparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT leejiyeong comparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT hamyeajin comparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT hwangdonghwan comparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT kwonsuncheol comparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy AT shinjoonho comparisonoftheeffectsandusabilityoftwoexoskeletalrobotswithandwithoutroboticactuationforupperextremityrehabilitationamongpatientswithstrokeasingleblindedrandomisedcontrolledpilotstudy |