Robotic-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Pilot Study

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
2
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER
Citação
ARCHIVES OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND CLINICAL TRANSLATION, v.5, n.1, article ID 100255, 6p, 2023
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objective: To compare the effects of 2 types of robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) devices that have been used in stroke rehabilitation. Design: Retrospective cohort.Setting: Rehabilitation hospital.Participants: 24 community dwelling people with stroke (N=24).Interventions: RAGT with either an exoskeleton (Lokomat) (mean age=53.8 years; 30% men; mean duration of stroke =17.8 months) or an end-effector (G-EO) (mean age=50.5 years; 77.8% men; mean duration of stroke =13.11) delivered 3 times per week (36 sessions total).Main Outcome Measures: The following tests/scales were employed before and after RAGT: Functional Ambulation Categories (FACs), timed Up and Go (TUG), 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), 6 -Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Trunk Impairment Scale, Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and ability to climb stairs (time to climb 6 steps of 15 cm each; ability to climb stairs).Results: There were 5 dropouts, all from the G-EO group. At the end, 10 participants in the Lokomat and 9 in the G-EO group completed the intervention. From pre-to post-RAGT, G-EO patients improved on all functional tests/scales, whereas Lokomat patients improved only on the TUG, DGI, and BBS. Most patients showed improvements above the relative smallest real difference in the TUG, 10MWT, and 6MWT.Conclusions: Both end-effectors and exoskeletons may improve clinically relevant aspects of walking function. However, this study had a small sample, was retrospective, non-randomized, and had a significant number of drop-outs, therefore its findings should be interpreted carefully. Future studies are needed for investigating potential differences in clinical results, side effects, contraindications, and cost effectiveness between these 2 different types of RAGT.(c) 2023 The Authors.
Palavras-chave
Rehabilitation, Robotic exoskeleton, Stroke
Referências
  1. [Anonymous], 2020, J Int Soc Phys Rehabil Med, V3, P489
  2. Carr J, Neurological rehabilitation, optimizing motor performance, V2nd
  3. Feigin VL, 2019, LANCET NEUROL, V18, P459, DOI [10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30034-1, 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30499-X, 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30415-0]
  4. Filippo TRM, 2015, SPINAL CORD, V53, P875, DOI 10.1038/sc.2015.27
  5. Flansbjer UB, 2005, J REHABIL MED, V37, P75, DOI 10.1080/16501970410017215
  6. Hesse S, 2010, J NEUROENG REHABIL, V7, DOI 10.1186/1743-0003-7-30
  7. Hornby TG, 2020, J NEUROL PHYS THER, V44, P49, DOI 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000303
  8. Infarinato F, 2021, BRAIN SCI, V11, DOI 10.3390/brainsci11040448
  9. Kwakkel G, 2013, INT J STROKE, V8, P25, DOI 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00967.x
  10. Mehrholz J, 2014, Textbook of neural repair and rehabilitation, P190
  11. Mehrholz J, 2020, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub5
  12. Mehrholz J, 2018, DTSCH ARZTEBL INT, V115, P639, DOI 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0639
  13. Nelson EK, 2013, BMC MED INFORM DECIS, V13, DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-13-5
  14. Reichl S, 2020, J NEUROENG REHABIL, V17, DOI 10.1186/s12984-020-00669-3
  15. Ward NS, 2019, J NEUROL NEUROSUR PS, V90, P498, DOI 10.1136/jnnp-2018-319954
  16. Zeiler SR, 2013, CURR OPIN NEUROL, V26, P609, DOI 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000025