Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: a framework for classification based on a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Basteris A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4108977 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:: Studies of stroke patients undergoing robot-assisted rehabilitation have revealed various kinematic parameters describing movement quality of the upper limb. However, due to the different level of stroke impairment and different assessment criteria and interventions, the evaluation of the effectiveness of rehabilitation program is undermined. This paper presents a systematic review of kinematic assessments of movement quality of the upper limb and identifies the suitable parameters describing impairments in stroke patients. A total of 41 different clinical and pilot studies on different phases of stroke recovery utilizing kinematic parameters are evaluated. Kinematic parameters describing movement accuracy are mostly reported for chronic patients with statistically significant outcomes and correlate strongly with clinical assessments. Meanwhile, parameters describing feed-forward sensorimotor control are the most frequently reported in studies on sub-acute patients with significant outcomes albeit without correlation to any clinical assessments. However, lack of measures in coordinated movement and proximal component of upper limb enunciate the difficulties to distinguish the exploitation of joint redundancies exhibited by stroke patients in completing the movement. A further study on overall measures of coordinated movement is recommended.
| S-EPMC4180322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prior studies examining predictors of favorable clinical outcomes after upper limb robot-assisted therapy (RT) have many shortcomings. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify meaningful predictors and a prediction model for clinically significant motor improvement in upper limb impairment after RT for each stroke phase. This retrospective, single-center study enrolled patients with stroke who received RT using InMotion2 along with conventional therapy (CT) from January 2015 to September 2019. Demographic characteristics, clinical measures, and robotic kinematic measures were evaluated. The primary outcome measure was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) and we classified patients with improvement more than the minimal clinically important difference as responders for each stroke phase. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the relationship between potential predictors and RT responders and determine meaningful predictors. Subsequently, meaningful predictors were included in the final prediction model. One hundred forty-four patients were enrolled. The Hand Movement Scale and time since onset were significant predictors of clinically significant improvement in upper limb impairment (P = 0.045 and 0.043, respectively), as represented by the FMA-UE score after RT along with CT, in patients with subacute stroke. These variables were also meaningful predictors with borderline statistical significance in patients with chronic stroke (P = 0.076 and 0.066, respectively). Better hand movement and a shorter time since onset can be used as realistic predictors of clinically significant motor improvement in upper limb impairment after RT with InMotion2 alongside CT in patients with subacute and chronic stroke. This information may help healthcare professionals discern optimal patients for RT and accurately inform patients and caregivers about outcomes of RT.
| S-EPMC8281036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLoss of arm function is a common problem after stroke. Robot-assisted training might improve arm function and activities of daily living. We compared the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted training using the MIT-Manus robotic gym with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme based on repetitive functional task practice and with usual care.MethodsRATULS was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at four UK centres. Stroke patients aged at least 18 years with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years after their first stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive robot-assisted training, EULT, or usual care. Robot-assisted training and EULT were provided for 45 min, three times per week for 12 weeks. Randomisation was internet-based using permuted block sequences. Treatment allocation was masked from outcome assessors but not from participants or therapists. The primary outcome was upper limb function success (defined using the Action Research Arm Test [ARAT]) at 3 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN69371850.FindingsBetween April 14, 2014, and April 30, 2018, 770 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either robot-assisted training (n=257), EULT (n=259), or usual care (n=254). The primary outcome of ARAT success was achieved by 103 (44%) of 232 patients in the robot-assisted training group, 118 (50%) of 234 in the EULT group, and 85 (42%) of 203 in the usual care group. Compared with usual care, robot-assisted training (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·17 [98·3% CI 0·70-1·96]) and EULT (aOR 1·51 [0·90-2·51]) did not improve upper limb function; the effects of robot-assisted training did not differ from EULT (aOR 0·78 [0·48-1·27]). More participants in the robot-assisted training group (39 [15%] of 257) and EULT group (33 [13%] of 259) had serious adverse events than in the usual care group (20 [8%] of 254), but none were attributable to the intervention.InterpretationRobot-assisted training and EULT did not improve upper limb function after stroke compared with usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation. These results do not support the use of robot-assisted training as provided in this trial in routine clinical practice.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
| S-EPMC6620612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntensive robot-assisted training of the upper limb after stroke can reduce motor impairment, even at the chronic stage. However, the effectiveness of practice for recovery depends on the selection of the practised movements. We hypothesized that rehabilitation can be optimized by selecting the movements to be practiced based on the trainee's performance profile.MethodsWe present a novel principle ('steepest gradients') for performance-based selection of movements. The principle is based on mapping motor performance across a workspace and then selecting movements located at regions of the steepest transition between better and worse performance. To assess the benefit of this principle we compared the effect of 15 sessions of robot-assisted reaching training on upper-limb motor impairment, between two groups of people who have moderate-to-severe chronic upper-limb hemiparesis due to stroke. The test group (N = 7) received steepest gradients-based training, iteratively selected according to the steepest gradients principle with weekly remapping, whereas the control group (N = 9) received a standard "centre-out" reaching training. Training intensity was identical.ResultsBoth groups showed improvement in Fugl-Meyer upper-extremity scores (the primary outcome measure). Moreover, the test group showed significantly greater improvement (twofold) compared to control. The score remained elevated, on average, for at least 4 weeks although the additional benefit of the steepest-gradients -based training diminished relative to control.ConclusionsThis study provides a proof of concept for the superior benefit of performance-based selection of practiced movements in reducing upper-limb motor impairment due to stroke. This added benefit was most evident in the short term, suggesting that performance-based steepest-gradients training may be effective in increasing the rate of initial phase of practice-based recovery; we discuss how long-term retention may also be improved.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN65226825 , registered 12 June 2018 - Retrospectively registered.
| S-EPMC6425657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAction observation (AO) is a physical rehabilitation approach that facilitates the occurrence of neural plasticity through the activation of the mirror-neural system, promoting motor recovery in people with stroke.ObjectivesTo assess whether AO enhances upper limb motor function in people with stroke.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 18 May 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (18 May 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 May 2021), Embase (1974 to 18 May 2021), and five additional databases. We also searched trial registries and reference lists.Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AO alone or associated with physical practice in adults after stroke. The primary outcome was upper limb (arm and hand) motor function. Secondary outcomes included dependence on activities of daily living (ADL), motor performance, cortical activation, quality of life, and adverse effects.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials according to the predefined inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using RoB 1, and applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. The reviews authors contacted trial authors for clarification and missing information.Main resultsWe included 16 trials involving 574 individuals. Most trials provided AO followed by the practice of motor actions. Training varied between 1 day and 8 weeks of therapy, 10 to 90 minutes per session. The time of AO ranged from 1 minute to 10 minutes for each motor action, task or movement observed. The total number of motor actions ranged from 1 to 3. Control comparisons included sham observation, physical therapy, and functional activity practice.Primary outcomesAO improved arm function (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.61; 11 trials, 373 participants; low-certainty evidence); and improved hand function (mean difference (MD) 2.76, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.49; 5 trials, 178 participants; low-certainty evidence).Secondary outcomesAO did not improve ADL performance (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.08; 7 trials, 302 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or quality of life (MD 5.52, 95% CI -30.74 to 41.78; 2 trials, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool the other secondary outcomes (motor performance and cortical activation). Only two trials reported adverse events without significant adverse effects.Authors' conclusionsThe effects of AO are small for arm function compared to any control group; for hand function the effects are large, but not clinically significant. For both, the certainty of evidence is low. There is no evidence of benefit or detriment from AO on ADL and quality of life of people with stroke; however, the certainty of evidence is very low. As such, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited because it will likely change with future research.
| S-EPMC9354942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of delivering Art skill-based Rehabilitation Training (ART), a novel upper limb motor training program, to patients with stroke as an adjunct to standard care in an inpatient setting.DesignFeasibility study.SettingInpatient stroke rehabilitation unit at a university hospital.ParticipantsThirty-eight patients admitted to a stroke rehabilitation unit with upper limb motor impairment were enrolled in the ART program facilitated by trained non-healthcare professionals between December 2017 and June 2021.InterventionThe ART program included nine, one-hour sessions of supervised tracing and freehand drawing tasks completed with both hands. This program was intended to be delivered at a frequency of three times per week over a duration of 3 weeks or for the length of inpatient stay.Main outcome measuresFeasibility outcomes included ART program adherence, acceptability, and safety.ResultsThirty-two (84%) participants with subacute stroke completed the ART program and 30 (79%) were included in the study analysis. Participants completed 93-100% of the ART tasks in a median [IQR] of 8 [6-10] ART sessions over a median [IQR] duration of 15 [7-19] days. ART program facilitators effectively provided upper limb assistance to patients with more severe upper limb impairments. Adherence and acceptability were high and no study-related adverse events occurred.ConclusionThe ART program was feasible to deliver and highly acceptable to patients with stroke. Further research is warranted to explore the impact of ART on upper limb sensorimotor function and use.
| S-EPMC9515518 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With the popularization of rehabilitation robots, it is necessary to develop quantitative motor function assessment methods for patients with a stroke. To make the assessment equipment easier to use in clinics and combine the assessment methods with the rehabilitation training process, this paper proposes an anthropomorphic rehabilitation robot based on the basic movement patterns of the upper limb, point-to-point reaching and circle drawing movement. This paper analyzes patients' movement characteristics in aspects of movement range, movement accuracy, and movement smoothness and the output force characteristics by involving 8 patients. Besides, a quantitative assessment method is also proposed based on multivariate fitting methods. It can be concluded that the area of the real trajectory and movement accuracy during circle drawing movement as well as the ratio of force along the sagittal axis in backward point-to-point movement are the unique parameters that are different remarkably between stroke patients and healthy subjects. The fitting function has a high goodness of fit with the Fugl-Meyer scores for the upper limb (R 2 = 0.91, p = 0.015), which demonstrates that the fitting function can be used to assess patients' upper limb movement function. The indicators are recorded during training movement, and the fitting function can calculate the scores immediately, which makes the functional assessment quantitative and timely. Combining the training process and assessment, the quantitative assessment method will farther expand the application of rehabilitation robots.
| S-EPMC7224306 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is a challenge to reduce the muscular discoordination in the paretic upper limb after stroke in the traditional rehabilitation programs.MethodIn this study, a neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and robot hybrid system was developed for multi-joint coordinated upper limb physical training. The system could assist the elbow, wrist and fingers to conduct arm reaching out, hand opening/grasping and arm withdrawing by tracking an indicative moving cursor on the screen of a computer, with the support from the joint motors and electrical stimulations on target muscles, under the voluntary intention control by electromyography (EMG). Subjects with chronic stroke (n = 11) were recruited for the investigation on the assistive capability of the NMES-robot and the evaluation of the rehabilitation effectiveness through a 20-session device assisted upper limb training.ResultsIn the evaluation, the movement accuracy measured by the root mean squared error (RMSE) during the tracking was significantly improved with the support from both the robot and NMES, in comparison with those without the assistance from the system (P < 0.05). The intra-joint and inter-joint muscular co-contractions measured by EMG were significantly released when the NMES was applied to the agonist muscles in the different phases of the limb motion (P < 0.05). After the physical training, significant improvements (P < 0.05) were captured by the clinical scores, i.e., Modified Ashworth Score (MAS, the elbow and the wrist), Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT).ConclusionsThe EMG-driven NMES-robotic system could improve the muscular coordination at the elbow, wrist and fingers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02117089 ; date of registration: April 10, 2014.
| S-EPMC5406922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis study aims to assess the extent to which accelerometers can be used to determine the effect of robot-supported task-oriented arm-hand training, relative to task-oriented arm-hand training alone, on the actual amount of arm-hand use of chronic stroke patients in their home situation.MethodsThis single-blind randomized controlled trial included 16 chronic stroke patients, randomly allocated using blocked randomization (n = 2) to receive task-oriented robot-supported arm-hand training or task-oriented (unsupported) arm-hand training. Training lasted 8 weeks, 4 times/week, 2 × 30 min/day using the (T-)TOAT ((Technology-supported)-Task-Oriented-Arm-Training) method. The actual amount of arm-hand use, was assessed at baseline, after 8 weeks training and 6 months after training cessation. Duration of use and intensity of use of the affected arm-hand during unimanual and bimanual activities were calculated.ResultsDuration and intensity of use of the affected arm-hand did not change significantly during and after training, with or without robot-support (i.e. duration of use of unimanual use of the affected arm-hand: median difference of -0.17% in the robot-group and -0.08% in the control group between baseline and after training cessation; intensity of the affected arm-hand: median difference of 3.95% in the robot-group and 3.32% in the control group between baseline and after training cessation). No significant between-group differences were found.ConclusionsAccelerometer data did not show significant changes in actual amount of arm-hand use after task-oriented training, with or without robot-support. Next to the amount of use, discrimination between activities performed and information about quality of use of the affected arm-hand are essential to determine actual arm-hand performance.Trial registrationControlled-trials.com ISRCTN82787126.
| S-EPMC4019639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke.MethodsIn this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks.ResultsAt 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, -0.14 points; 95% CI, -2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95% CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95% CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, -8.10 seconds; 95% CI, -13.61 to -2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionsIn patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)
| S-EPMC5592692 | biostudies-literature