Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Gait Training on Functional Skills in Children with Cerebral Palsy

Abstract

This study was aimed to investigate the effects of robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) on motor functions, spasticity status, balance, and functionality in children with cerebral palsy (CP). A total of 26 patients who were diagnosed with CP (diplegic, with gross motor function classification system [GMFCS] levels of 2–5) and who regularly participated in a rehabilitation program were recruited in the study after obtaining approval from their parents. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Group 1 (n = 13) received conventional physical therapy (65 minutes, 2 days/week × 8) and group 2 (n = 13) received 25 minutes of RAGT (RoboGait) in addition to conventional therapy (CT; 40 minutes, 2 days/week × 8). GMFCS was used to evaluate motor functions and the Modified Ashworth Scale was used to evaluate spasticity. The pediatric Berg balance scale, pediatric functional independence measure, and timed up and go tests were employed to assess balance and functional status. The evaluations were performed at baseline and after 8 weeks of therapy. Both rehabilitation methods led to a statistically significant decrease in spasticity (p < 0.05); however, there was no difference in this improvement of spasticity between the groups (p > 0.05). Both groups exhibited significant improvements in functional independence, balance, and performance at the end of therapy (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The results of this study show that addition of RAGT to CT for 8 weeks is not superior to CT alone in children with CP.

Effects of robot rehabilitation on the motor function and gait in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…277 studies were excluded as irrelevant. Finally, 43 studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria of PICOS were excluded and the final seven studies were selected ( Drużbicki et al, 2013 ; Fu et al, 2022 ; Moll et al, 2022 ; Pool et al, 2021 ; Sarhan et al, 2014 ; Wallard et al, 2017 ; Yaşar et al, 2022 ) ( Fig. 1 ).…”

“…Of the 11 assessment items, items 2 through 11 were assessed, with the exception of item 1, which assesses external validity. The results showed that two articles ( Drużbicki et al, 2013 ; Moll et al, 2022 ) were rated as fair and five articles ( Fu et al, 2022 ; Pool et al, 2021 ; Sarhan et al, 2014 ; Wallard et al, 2017 ; Yaşar et al, 2022 ) were rated as good ( Table 3 ).…”

Robotic Technologies in ADHD Care: Literature Review

“…The advent and advancement of robotics have enabled the development of tasks that humans cannot perform, or at least not with such precision [66][67][68]. In the field of eHealth, robotics has played a fundamental role in helping and treating people with various neurological conditions such as trauma [69], dementia [33][34][35][36][37], ASD [24][25][26][27][28], cerebral palsy [29][30][31][32] and ADHD [18][19][20][21][22][23]. Although in recent years the application of robotics in the treatment and support of ADHD has received considerable research attention, however, it is far inferior compared to dementia, autism, and cerebral palsy.…”

“…Several NDD treatments have significantly harnessed the potential of robotics. The use of robots in the treatment of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) [24][25][26][27][28], cerebral palsy [29][30][31][32] and dementia [33][34][35][36][37] has produced good results and established the basis for applying their developments in the treatment of ADHD. However, its application in the field of ADHD has been much less, representing 1.1% -1.8% compared to other NND.…”

Robotic Systems for the Physiotherapy Treatment of Children with Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review

“…The robotic systems that were used in the articles that were included in this systematic review mainly focused on gait parameters and lower limb motor dysfunctions. The most commonly used were the Lokomat system [27][28][29]32], followed by the Innowalk Pro [30], the Walkbot-K system [31] and Robogait [33]. All sessions were individualized and included between 20 [31] and 52 [27] children who were diagnosed with cerebral palsy.…”