Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Aprile, Irene
• Germanotta, Marco
• Cruciani, Arianna
• Loreti, Simona
• Pecchioli, Cristiano
• Cecchi, Francesca
• Montesano, Angelo
• Galeri, Silvia
• Diverio, Manuela
• Falsini, Catuscia
• Speranza, Gabriele
• Langone, Emanuele
• Papadopoulou, Dionysia
• Padua, Luca
• Carrozza, Maria Chiara

Titel

Upper Limb Robotic Rehabilitation After Stroke: A Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial

Ist Teil von

• Journal of neurologic physical therapy, 2020-01, Vol.44 (1), p.3-14

Ort / Verlag

United States: Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy, APTA

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:After stroke, only 12% of survivors obtain complete upper limb (UL) functional recovery, while in 30% to 60% UL deficits persist. Despite the complexity of the UL, prior robot-mediated therapy research has used only one robot in comparisons to conventional therapy. We evaluated the efficacy of robotic UL treatment using a set of 4 devices, compared with conventional therapy. METHODS:In a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, 247 subjects with subacute stroke were assigned either to robotic (using a set of 4 devices) or to conventional treatment, each consisting of 30 sessions. Subjects were evaluated before and after treatment, with follow-up assessment after 3 months. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) score. Secondary outcome measures were selected to assess motor function, activities, and participation. RESULTS:One hundred ninety subjects completed the posttreatment assessment, with a subset (n = 122) returning for follow-up evaluation. Mean FMA score improvement in the robotic group was 8.50 (confidence interval6.82 to 10.17), versus 8.57 (confidence interval6.97 to 10.18) in the conventional group, with no significant between-groups difference (adjusted mean difference −0.08, P = 0.948). Both groups also had similar change in secondary measures, except for the Motricity Index, with better results for the robotic group (adjusted mean difference 4.42, P = 0.037). At follow-up, subjects continued to improve with no between-groups differences. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:Robotic treatment using a set of 4 devices significantly improved UL motor function, activities, and participation in subjects with subacute stroke to the same extent as a similar amount of conventional therapy. Video Abstract is available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available athttp://links.lww.com/JNPT/A291).