Background Robotic-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) may enable high-intensive and task-specific gait training post-stroke. The effect of RAGT on gait movement patterns has however not been comprehensively reviewed. The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence for potentially superior effects of RAGT on biomechanical measures of gait post-stroke when compared with non-robotic gait training alone. Methods Nine databases were searched using database-specific search terms from their inception until January 2021. We included randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of RAGT (e.g., using exoskeletons or end-effectors) on spatiotemporal, kinematic and kinetic parameters among adults suffering from any stage of stroke. Screening, data extraction and judgement of risk of bias (using the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool) were performed by 2–3 independent reviewers. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used to evaluate the certainty of evidence for the biomechanical gait measures of interest. Results Thirteen studies including a total of 412 individuals (mean age: 52–69 years; 264 males) met eligibility criteria and were included. RAGT was employed either as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies in a subacute or chronic phase post-stroke. The included studies showed a high risk of bias (n = 6), some concerns (n = 6) or a low risk of bias (n = 1). Meta-analyses using a random-effects model for gait speed, cadence, step length (non-affected side) and spatial asymmetry revealed no significant differences between the RAGT and comparator groups, while stride length (mean difference [MD] 2.86 cm), step length (affected side; MD 2.67 cm) and temporal asymmetry calculated in ratio-values (MD 0.09) improved slightly more in the RAGT groups. There were serious weaknesses with almost all GRADE domains (risk of bias, consistency, directness, or precision of the findings) for the included outcome measures (spatiotemporal and kinematic gait parameters). Kinetic parameters were not reported at all. Conclusion There were few relevant studies and the review synthesis revealed a very low certainty in current evidence for employing RAGT to improve gait biomechanics post-stroke. Further high-quality, robust clinical trials on RAGT that complement clinical data with biomechanical data are thus warranted to disentangle the potential effects of such interventions on gait biomechanics post-stroke.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundInstrumented gait analysis post-stroke is becoming increasingly more common in research and clinics. Although overall standardized procedures are proposed, an almost infinite number of potential variables for kinematic analysis is generated and there remains a lack of consensus regarding which are the most important for sufficient evaluation. The current aim was to identify a discriminative core set of kinematic variables for gait post-stroke.MethodsWe applied a three-step process of statistical analysis on commonly used kinematic gait variables comprising the whole body, derived from 3D motion data on 31 persons post-stroke and 41 non-disabled controls. The process of identifying relevant core sets involved: (1) exclusion of variables for which there were no significant group differences; (2) systematic investigation of one, or combinations of either two, three, or four significant variables whereby each core set was evaluated using a leave-one-out cross-validation combined with logistic regression to estimate a misclassification rate (MR).ResultsThe best MR for one single variable was shown for the Duration of single-support (MR 0.10) or Duration of 2nd double-support (MR 0.11) phase, corresponding to an 89–90% probability of correctly classifying a person as post-stroke/control. Adding Pelvis sagittal ROM to either of the variables Self-selected gait speed or Stride length, alternatively adding Ankle sagittal ROM to the Duration of single-stance phase, increased the probability of correctly classifying individuals to 93–94% (MR 0.06). Combining three variables decreased the MR further to 0.04, suggesting a probability of 96% for correct classification. These core sets contained: (1) a spatial (Stride/Step length) or a temporal variable (Self-selected gait speed/Stance time/Swing time or Duration of 2nd double-support), (2) Pelvis sagittal ROM or Ankle plantarflexion during push-off, and (3) Arm Posture Score or Cadence or a knee/shoulder joint angle variable. Adding a fourth variable did not further improve the MR.ConclusionA core set combining a few crucial kinematic variables may sufficiently evaluate post-stroke gait and should receive more attention in rehabilitation. Our results may contribute toward a consensus on gait evaluation post-stroke, which could substantially facilitate future diagnosis and monitoring of rehabilitation progress.

No abstract