Effect on arm function and cost of robot-assisted group therapy in subacute patients with stroke and a moderately to severely affected arm: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of robot-assisted arm group therapy (RAGT) versus individual arm therapy (IAT) to restore motor function in the moderately to severely affected patient after stroke.

Design:

Single blind randomized controlled trial.

Setting:

Two in-patient neurological rehabilitation centers.

Participants:

Fifty first time subacute patients with stroke and a non-functional hand.

Intervention:

The patients practiced either 30 minutes of RAGT + 30 minutes of IAT (group A) or 2x30 minutes of IAT (group B), per workday for four weeks. The RAGT consisted of six workstations enabling repetitive practice of finger, wrist, forearm and shoulder movements. Patients practiced according to their impairment level on at least two workstations per session. The IAT followed the Motor Relearning Programme, enriched by elements of the impairment-oriented training.

Main outcome measure:

Changes of the Fugl Meyer Score (FM, 0-66) between baseline and after 4 weeks, incremental cost effectiveness.

Results:

Patients were homogeneous at study onset. All patients improved their upper limb motor function over time, but there were no between group differences. The initial (terminal) FM scores were 14.6±9.4 (25.7±16.5) in group A and 16.5±9.8 (31.1±19.1) in group B. The treatment of a single patient with RAGT cost 4.15 €, compared to 10.00 € for a patient to receive IAT.

Conclusion:

RAGT in combination with IAT was equally effective as a double session of IAT regarding the restoration of upper limb motor functions in moderate to severely affected subacute patients with stroke. The treatment costs for RAGT were less.

Keywords

Stroke robot-assisted devices randomized controlled trial rehabilitation intervention neurological rehabilitation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kolominsky-Rabas

Heuschmann

Marschall

, et al. Lifetime cost of ischemic stroke in Germany: results and national projections from a population-based stroke registry: the Erlangen Stroke Project. Stroke 2006; 37:1179–1183.

Platz

. Evidenzbasierte Armrehabilitation: eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Evidence-based arm rehabilitation - a systematic review of the literature]. Nervenarzt 2003;74:841–849.

Kwakkel

Kollen

an der Grond

, et al. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb. The impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 2003; 34: 2181–2186.

Kwakkel

Wagenaar

Twisk

JWR

, et al. Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet 1999; 354: 191–196.

Kwakkel

Kollen

Krebs

. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22: 111–121.

Aisen

Krebs

Hogan

, et al. The effect of robot-assisted therapy and rehabilitative training on motor recovery following stroke. Arch Neurol 1997; 54: 443–446.

Volpe

Krebs

Hogan

, et al. A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation. Neurology 2000; 54: 1938–1944.

Hesse

Werner

Pohl

, et al. Computerized arm training improves the motor control of the severely affected arm after stroke. A single-blinded randomized trial in two centres. Stroke 2005; 36: 1960–1966.

Masiero

Celia

Rosati

, et al. Robotic-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limb after acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 142–149.

10.

Buschfort

Brocke

Hess

, et al. Arm studio to intensify the upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: concept, acceptance, utilization and preliminary clinical results. J Rehabil Med 2010; 42: 310–314.

11.

Carr

Shepherd

. A motor relearing programme. London: William Heinemann, 1987, pp.1–25.

12.

Platz

Winter

Müller

, et al. Arm ability training for stroke and traumatic brain injured patients with mild arm paresis: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 81: 961–968.

13.

Platz

Eickhof

van Kaick

, et al. Impairment-oriented training or Bobath therapy for severe arm paresis after stroke: a single-blind, multicentre randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2005; 19: 714–724.

14.

Langhammer

. Bobath or motor learning programme? A comparison of two different approaches of physiotherapy in stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled study. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 361–369.

15.

Fugl-Meyer

Jasko

Leyman

, et al. The post-stroke patient. 1: A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehab Med 1975; 7: 13–31.

16.

Wade

. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

17.

Arya

Verma

Garg

. Estimating the minimal clinically important difference of an upper extremity recovery measure in subacute stroke patients. Top Stroke Rehabil 2011; 18: 599–610.

18.

Hesse

Schulte-Tigges

Konrad

, et al. Robot-assisted arm trainer for the passive and active practice of bilateral forearm and wrist movement in hemiparetic subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 915–920.

19.

Hesse

Kuhlmann

Wilk

, et al. A new electromechanical trainer for sensorimotor rehabilitation of paralysed fingers: a case series in chronic and acute stroke patients. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2008; 4; 5–21.

20.

Hesse

Werner

Pohl

, et al. Mechanical arm trainer for the treatment of the severely affected arm after a stroke: a single-blinded randomized trial in two centers. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 87: 779–788.

21.

O’Dwyer

Ada

Neilson

. Reflex hyperexcitability and muscle contracture in relation to spastic hypertonia. Curr Opin Neurol 1996; 9: 451–455.

22.

Bütefisch

Hummelsheim

Denzler

, et al. Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand. J Neurol Sci 1995; 130: 59–68.

23.

Lyle

. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehab Research 1981; 4: 483–492.

24.

Mathiowetz

Volland

Kashman

, et al. Adults norms for the Box & Block test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther 1985; 39: 386–391.

25.

Chan

. Motor relearning programme for stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2006; 20: 191–200.

26.

Langhammer

Stanghelle

. Can physiotherapy after stroke based on the Bobath concept result in improved quality of movement compared to the motor relearning programme. Physiother Res Int 2011; 16: 69–80.

27.

Duncan

Lai

Keighley

. Defining post-stroke recovery: implications for design and interpretation of drug trials. Neuropharmacol 2000; 39: 835–841.

28.

English

Hiller

Stiller

, et al. Circuit class therapy versus individual physiotherapy sessions during in-patient stroke rehabilitation: a controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 955–963.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB