Significant results have been shown when an upper limb robot-assisted rehabilitation is delivered to stroke patients.
OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate the effects of upper limb robot-assisted rehabilitation on motor recovery in stroke patients who underwent a treatment based on a haptic device.
METHODS:
Thirty-nine stroke patients (twenty-three subacute and sixteen chronic) underwent rehabilitation training by using MOTORE/Armotion haptic system. Thirteen healthy subjects were recruited for comparison purpose.
The following clinical outcome measures were used: Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment, Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FM), Medical Research Council, Motricity Index (MI), Box and Block Test (B&B) and Modified Barthel Index (mBI).
The following parameters were computed: mean speed, maximum speed, mean time, path length, normalized jerk, mean force, mean error, mean energy expenditure and active patient-robot interaction percentage.
The assessments were carried-out before and after treatment.
RESULTS:
Significant changes were observed in both groups in the FM, MI, B&B and mean speed. Significant changes were observed in mBI, mean time, mean force, mean energy expenditure and active patient-robot interaction percentage in subacute stroke patients. In chronic stroke patients significant changes were found on the MAS-elbow.
CONCLUSIONS:
The haptic device used is at least as effective as an existing device used in similar studies.
AvizzanoC. A., SatlerM., CappielloG., ScoglioA., RuffaldiE., & BergamascoM. (2011). MOTORE: A mobile haptic interface for neuro-rehabilitation. RO-MAN, 2011IEEE.
2.
BalasubramanianS., ColomboR., SterpiI., SanguinetiV., & BurdetE. (2012). Robotic assessment of upper limb motor function after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 91(11 Suppl 3), 255–269.
3.
BohannonR., & SmithM. (1987). Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Physical Therapy, 67(2), 206.
4.
CaimmiM., CardaS., GiovanzanaC., MainiE. S., SabatiniA. M., SmaniaN., & MolteniF. (2007). Using kinematic analysis to evaluate constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 22(1), 31–39.
5.
ChangW. H., & KimY. H. (2013). Robot-assisted therapy in stroke rehabilitation. J Stroke, 15(3), 174–181.
6.
CollinC., WadeD. T., DaviesS., & HorneV. (1988). The Barthel ADL Index: A reliability study. International Disability Studies, 10(2), 61–63.
7.
ColomboR., SterpiI., MazzoneA., DelconteC., MinucoG., & PisanoF. (2010). Measuring changes of movement dynamics during robot-aided neurorehabilitation of stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 18(1), 75–85.
8.
DemeurisseG., DemolO., & RobayeE. (1980). Motor evaluation in vascular hemiplegia. European Neurology, 19(6), 382–389.
9.
DuretC., CourtialO., & GrosmaireA. G. (2016). Kinematic measures for upper limb motor assessment during robot-mediated training in patients with severe sub-acute stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci, 34(2), 237–245.
10.
GowlandC., StratfordP., WardM., MorelandJ., TorresinW., Van HullenaarS., SanfordJ., BarrecaS., VanspallB., & PlewsN. (1993). Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke, 24(1), 58–63.
11.
HatemS. M., SaussezG., della FailleM., PristV., ZhangX., DispaD., & BleyenheuftY. (2016). Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: A multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery. Front Hum Neurosci, 10, 1–22.
12.
KrebsH. I., KramsM., AgrafiotisD. K., Di BernardoA., ChavezJ. C., LittmanG. S., YangE., ByttebierG., DipietroL., RykmanA., McArthurK., HajjarK., LeesK. R., & VolpeB. T. (2014). Robotic measurement of arm movements after stroke establishes biomarkers of motor recovery. Stroke, 45(1), 200–204.
13.
KwakkelG., KollenB. J., & KrebsH. I. (2008). Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: A systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 22(2), 111–121.
LoureiroR. C. V., HarwinW. S., NagaiK., & JohnsonM. (2011). Advances in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: A technology push. Med Biol Eng Comput, 49(10), 1103–1118.
16.
LumP. S., BurgarC. G., & ShorP. C. (2002). Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 83(7), 952–959.
17.
MathiowetzV., VollandG., KashmanN., & WeberK. (1985). Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther, 39(6), 386–391.
18.
MazzoleniS., PosteraroF., FilippiM., ForteF., MiceraS., DarioP., & CarrozzaM. C. (2011). Biomechanical assessment of reaching movements in post-stroke patients during a robot-aided rehabilitation. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 8(1), 39–54.
19.
MazzoleniS., SaleP., TiboniM., FranceschiniM., CarrozzaM. C., & PosteraroF. (2013). Upper limb robot-assisted therapy in chronic and subacute stroke patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 92(10), 26–37.
20.
MazzoleniS., SaleP., FranceschiniM., BigazziS., CarrozzaM. C., DarioP., & PosteraroF. (2013). Effects of proximal and distal robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation on chronic stroke recovery. NeuroRehabilitation, 33(1), 33–39.
21.
MazzoleniS., TurchettiG., PallaI., PosteraroF., & DarioP. (2014). Acceptability of robotic technology in neuro-rehabilitation: Preliminary results on chronic stroke patients. Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 116(2), 116–122.
22.
Medical Research Council/Guarantors of Brain. Aids to the Examination of the Peripherical Nervous System. London: Baillère Tindall, 1986.
23.
MehrholzJ., PohlM., PlatzT., KuglerJ., & ElsnerB. (2015). Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 7(11).
24.
MozaffarianD., BenjaminE. J., GoA. S., et al. (2016). Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics - 2016. Update A Report From the American Heart Association Circulation, 133(4).
25.
NordinN., XieS. Q., & WunscheB. (2014). Assessment of movement quality in robot-asssited upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: A review. Journ Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 11, 137.
26.
PinF., & KilloughS. (2008). A new family of omnidirectional and holonomic wheelded platforms for mobile robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Autonomous System, 10(4), 480–489.
27.
PosteraroF., MazzoleniS., AliboniS., CesquiB., BattagliaA., DarioP., & MiceraS. (2009). Robot-mediated therapy for paretic upper limb of chronic patients following neurological injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 41(12), 976–980.
28.
RohrerB., FasoliS., KrebsH. I., HughesR., VolpeB., FronteraW. R., SteinJ., & HoganN. (2002). Movement smoothness changes during stroke recovery. The Journal of Neuroscience, 22(18), 8297–8304.
29.
SaleP., BovolentaF., AgostiM., ClericiP., & FranceschiniM. (2014). Short-term and long-term outcomes of serial robotic training for improving upper limb function in chronic stroke. Int J Rehabil Res, 37(1), 67–73.
30.
SaleP., FranceschiniM., MazzoleniS., PalmaE., AgostiM., & PosteraroF. (2014). Effects of upper limb robot-assisted therapy on motor recovery in subacute stroke patients. Journal of NeuroEngineerin and Rehabilitation, 11.
31.
SaracinoL., AvizzanoC.A., RuffaldiE., CappielloG., CurtoZ., & ScoglioA. (2016). MOTORE++ A Portable Haptic Device for Domestic Rehabilitation. Annual Conference of IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON).
32.
SatlerM., AvizzanoC. A., & RuffaldiE. (2011). Control of a Desktop Mobile Haptic Interface. World Haptics Conference (WHC), 2011IEEE.
33.
ShirotaC., JansaJ., DiazJ., BalasubramanianS., MazzoleniS., BorgheseN. A., & Melendez-CalderonA. (2016). On the assessment of coordination between upper extremities: Towards a common language between rehabilitation engineers, clinicians and neuroscientists. J Neuroeng Rehabil, 13(1), 80.
34.
SullivanK. J., Tilson-JaaskoJ. K., & CenS. Y. (2011). Fugl-meyer assessment of sensorimotor function after stroke standardized training procedure for clinical practice and clinical trials. Stroke, 42, 427–432.
35.
ZolloL., GallottaE., GuglielmelliE., & SterziS. (2011). Robotic technologies and rehabilitation: New tools for upper-limb therapy and assessment in chronic stroke. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med, 47, 223–236.
