These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Robot-Assisted Training as Self-Training for Upper-Limb Hemiplegia in Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Author: Takebayashi T, Takahashi K, Amano S, Gosho M, Sakai M, Hashimoto K, Hachisuka K, Uchiyama Y, Domen K.
    Journal: Stroke; 2022 Jul; 53(7):2182-2191. PubMed ID: 35345897.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine whether robotic self-training improved upper-extremity function versus conventional self-training in mild-to-moderate hemiplegic chronic stroke patients. METHODS: Study design was a multi-center, prospective, randomized, parallel-group study comparing three therapist-guided interventions (1-hour sessions, 3×/wk, 10 weeks). We identified 161 prospective patients with chronic, poststroke, upper-limb hemiplegia treated at participating rehabilitation centers. Patients were enrolled between November 29, 2016, and November 12, 2018 in Japan. A blinded web-based allocation system was used to randomly assign 129 qualifying patients into 3 groups: (1) conventional self-training plus conventional therapy (control, N=42); (2) robotic self-training (ReoGo-J) plus conventional therapy (robotic therapy [RT], N=44); or (3) robotic self-training plus constraint-induced movement therapy (N=43). PRIMARY OUTCOME: Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper-extremity. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Motor Activity Log-14 amount of use and quality of movement; Fugl-Meyer Assessment shoulder/elbow/forearm, wrist, finger, and coordination scores; Action Research Arm Test Score; Motricity Index; Modified Ashworth Scale; shoulder, elbow, forearm, wrist, and finger range of motion; and Stroke Impact Scale (the assessors were blinded). Safety outcomes were adverse events. RESULTS: Safety was assessed in 127 patients. An intention-to-treat full analysis set (N=121), and a per-protocol set (N=115) of patients who attended 80% of sessions were assessed. One severe adverse event was recorded, unrelated to the robotic device. No significant differences in Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper-extremity scores were observed between groups (RT versus control: -1.04 [95% CI, -2.79 to 0.71], P=0.40; RT versus movement therapy: -0.33 [95% CI, -2.02 to 1.36], P=0.90). The RT in the per-protocol set improved significantly in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper-extremity shoulder/elbow/forearm score (RT versus control: -1.46 [95% CI, -2.63 to -0.29]; P=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic self-training did not improve upper-limb function versus usual self-training, but may be effective combined with conventional therapy in some populations (per-protocol set). REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr; Unique identifier: UMIN000022509.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]