Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Upper Limb Robotic Rehabilitation After Stroke: A Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial.
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.
Afiliação
  • Aprile I; IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, Italy (I.A., A.C., S.L., C.P., A.M., S.G., G.S., E.L., D.P., L.P., M.C.C.); IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Florence, Italy (M.G., F.C., M.D., C.F.); Department of Geriatrics, Neurosciences and Orthopaedics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy (L.P.); and The Biorobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pontedera, Pisa, Italy (M.C.C.).
J Neurol Phys Ther ; 44(1): 3-14, 2020 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31834217
ABSTRACT
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 interval 6.82 to 10.17), versus 8.57 (confidence interval 6.97 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 at http//links.lww.com/JNPT/A291).
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Robótica / Recuperação de Função Fisiológica / Acidente Vascular Cerebral / Extremidade Superior / Reabilitação do Acidente Vascular Cerebral Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Neurol Phys Ther Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Robótica / Recuperação de Função Fisiológica / Acidente Vascular Cerebral / Extremidade Superior / Reabilitação do Acidente Vascular Cerebral Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Neurol Phys Ther Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article