Efficacy of end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training in subacute stroke patients: Clinical and gait outcomes from a pilot bi-centre study

Irene Aprile, Chiara Iacovelli, Michela Goffredo, Arianna Cruciani, Manuela Galli, Chiara Simbolotti, Cristiano Pecchioli, Luca Padua, Daniele Galafate, Sanaz Pournajaf, Marco Franceschini

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: End-effector robots allow intensive gait training in stroke subjects and promote a successful rehabilitation. A comparison between conventional and end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) in subacute stroke patients is needed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of end-effector RAGT in subacute stroke patients. METHODS: Twenty-six subacute stroke patients were divided into two group: 14 patients performed RAGT (RG); 12 patients performed conventional gait training (CG). Clinical assessment and gait analysis were performed at the beginning (T0) and at the end (T1) of the rehabilitation. RESULTS: The RG revealed a significant improvement in body function, activities, participation scales, and in the distance measured with the 6 MWT. The affected lower limb's spasticity significantly decreased at T1. In gait analysis, RG showed significantly increases in many parameters. The CG significantly improved clinical assessments but showed no significant changes in gait parameters. Statistically significant differences between RG and CG were found in MRC-HE, TCT, 10 MWT, 6 MWT, and TUG. No significant difference between groups was registered in gait kinematics. CONCLUSIONS: Both rehabilitation treatments produce promising effects in subacute stroke patients. RAGT device offers a more intensive, controlled, and physiological gait training and significantly improved deambulation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)201-212
Number of pages12
JournalNeuroRehabilitation
Volume45
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Gait
Stroke
Rehabilitation
Biomechanical Phenomena
Extremities

Keywords

  • end-effector device
  • neurologic gait disorders
  • rehabilitation
  • Robot-Assisted Gait Training
  • Stroke

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Rehabilitation
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

@article{54bbff760d444e5f889ac54ba7889c12,
title = "Efficacy of end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training in subacute stroke patients: Clinical and gait outcomes from a pilot bi-centre study",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: End-effector robots allow intensive gait training in stroke subjects and promote a successful rehabilitation. A comparison between conventional and end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) in subacute stroke patients is needed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of end-effector RAGT in subacute stroke patients. METHODS: Twenty-six subacute stroke patients were divided into two group: 14 patients performed RAGT (RG); 12 patients performed conventional gait training (CG). Clinical assessment and gait analysis were performed at the beginning (T0) and at the end (T1) of the rehabilitation. RESULTS: The RG revealed a significant improvement in body function, activities, participation scales, and in the distance measured with the 6 MWT. The affected lower limb's spasticity significantly decreased at T1. In gait analysis, RG showed significantly increases in many parameters. The CG significantly improved clinical assessments but showed no significant changes in gait parameters. Statistically significant differences between RG and CG were found in MRC-HE, TCT, 10 MWT, 6 MWT, and TUG. No significant difference between groups was registered in gait kinematics. CONCLUSIONS: Both rehabilitation treatments produce promising effects in subacute stroke patients. RAGT device offers a more intensive, controlled, and physiological gait training and significantly improved deambulation.",
keywords = "end-effector device, neurologic gait disorders, rehabilitation, Robot-Assisted Gait Training, Stroke",
author = "Irene Aprile and Chiara Iacovelli and Michela Goffredo and Arianna Cruciani and Manuela Galli and Chiara Simbolotti and Cristiano Pecchioli and Luca Padua and Daniele Galafate and Sanaz Pournajaf and Marco Franceschini",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3233/NRE-192778",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "201--212",
journal = "NeuroRehabilitation",
issn = "1053-8135",
publisher = "IOS Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy of end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training in subacute stroke patients

T2 - Clinical and gait outcomes from a pilot bi-centre study

AU - Aprile, Irene

AU - Iacovelli, Chiara

AU - Goffredo, Michela

AU - Cruciani, Arianna

AU - Galli, Manuela

AU - Simbolotti, Chiara

AU - Pecchioli, Cristiano

AU - Padua, Luca

AU - Galafate, Daniele

AU - Pournajaf, Sanaz

AU - Franceschini, Marco

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: End-effector robots allow intensive gait training in stroke subjects and promote a successful rehabilitation. A comparison between conventional and end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) in subacute stroke patients is needed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of end-effector RAGT in subacute stroke patients. METHODS: Twenty-six subacute stroke patients were divided into two group: 14 patients performed RAGT (RG); 12 patients performed conventional gait training (CG). Clinical assessment and gait analysis were performed at the beginning (T0) and at the end (T1) of the rehabilitation. RESULTS: The RG revealed a significant improvement in body function, activities, participation scales, and in the distance measured with the 6 MWT. The affected lower limb's spasticity significantly decreased at T1. In gait analysis, RG showed significantly increases in many parameters. The CG significantly improved clinical assessments but showed no significant changes in gait parameters. Statistically significant differences between RG and CG were found in MRC-HE, TCT, 10 MWT, 6 MWT, and TUG. No significant difference between groups was registered in gait kinematics. CONCLUSIONS: Both rehabilitation treatments produce promising effects in subacute stroke patients. RAGT device offers a more intensive, controlled, and physiological gait training and significantly improved deambulation.

AB - BACKGROUND: End-effector robots allow intensive gait training in stroke subjects and promote a successful rehabilitation. A comparison between conventional and end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) in subacute stroke patients is needed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of end-effector RAGT in subacute stroke patients. METHODS: Twenty-six subacute stroke patients were divided into two group: 14 patients performed RAGT (RG); 12 patients performed conventional gait training (CG). Clinical assessment and gait analysis were performed at the beginning (T0) and at the end (T1) of the rehabilitation. RESULTS: The RG revealed a significant improvement in body function, activities, participation scales, and in the distance measured with the 6 MWT. The affected lower limb's spasticity significantly decreased at T1. In gait analysis, RG showed significantly increases in many parameters. The CG significantly improved clinical assessments but showed no significant changes in gait parameters. Statistically significant differences between RG and CG were found in MRC-HE, TCT, 10 MWT, 6 MWT, and TUG. No significant difference between groups was registered in gait kinematics. CONCLUSIONS: Both rehabilitation treatments produce promising effects in subacute stroke patients. RAGT device offers a more intensive, controlled, and physiological gait training and significantly improved deambulation.

KW - end-effector device

KW - neurologic gait disorders

KW - rehabilitation

KW - Robot-Assisted Gait Training

KW - Stroke

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074744854&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074744854&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3233/NRE-192778

DO - 10.3233/NRE-192778

M3 - Article

C2 - 31498139

AN - SCOPUS:85074744854

VL - 45

SP - 201

EP - 212

JO - NeuroRehabilitation

JF - NeuroRehabilitation

SN - 1053-8135

IS - 2

ER -