Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2011
Who may benefit from robotic-assisted gait training? A randomized clinical trial in patients with subacute stroke.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Morone Giovanni, Bragoni Maura, Iosa Marco, De Angelis Domenico, Venturiero Vincenzo, Coiro Paola, Pratesi Luca, Paolucci Stefano
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted walking training after stroke aims to enable highly impaired patients to walk independently, but results have been mixed.
OBJECTIVE: The authors aimed to identify the characteristics of patients who may be most likely to benefit.
METHODS: A total of 48 participants with motor and gait dysfunction following subacute stroke were stratified by the motricity index into high (<29) and low (≥ 29) motor impairment groups. Each arm was randomized to a robotic or control group (RG or CG) at a mean of 20 days after stroke. All patients underwent 2 therapy sessions per day, 5 days per week for 3 months. Those in the RG underwent 20 sessions of robotic-assisted gait training in the first 4 weeks of inpatient therapy using controlled endpoint trajectories and abbreviated conventional therapy, whereas the CG received only conventional gait training. The primary outcome was the functional ambulation category (FAC), and secondary measures were the Rivermead mobility index (RMI) and 6-minute walking distance, all evaluated at hospital admission and at discharge.
RESULTS: The lower motricity group assigned to an electromechanical device significantly improved in the FAC (P < .001), RMI (P = .001), and walking distance (P = .029). Conventional and robotic therapies were equivalent in the higher motricity arm.
CONCLUSION: Robotic therapy combined with conventional therapy may be more effective than conventional therapy alone in patients with greater motor impairment during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE: The authors aimed to identify the characteristics of patients who may be most likely to benefit.
METHODS: A total of 48 participants with motor and gait dysfunction following subacute stroke were stratified by the motricity index into high (<29) and low (≥ 29) motor impairment groups. Each arm was randomized to a robotic or control group (RG or CG) at a mean of 20 days after stroke. All patients underwent 2 therapy sessions per day, 5 days per week for 3 months. Those in the RG underwent 20 sessions of robotic-assisted gait training in the first 4 weeks of inpatient therapy using controlled endpoint trajectories and abbreviated conventional therapy, whereas the CG received only conventional gait training. The primary outcome was the functional ambulation category (FAC), and secondary measures were the Rivermead mobility index (RMI) and 6-minute walking distance, all evaluated at hospital admission and at discharge.
RESULTS: The lower motricity group assigned to an electromechanical device significantly improved in the FAC (P < .001), RMI (P = .001), and walking distance (P = .029). Conventional and robotic therapies were equivalent in the higher motricity arm.
CONCLUSION: Robotic therapy combined with conventional therapy may be more effective than conventional therapy alone in patients with greater motor impairment during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.