Gait rehabilitation in subacute hemiparetic stroke: Robot-assisted gait training versus conventional physical therapy

Chanubol, Ratanapat; Wongphaet, Parit; Werner, Carsten; Chavanich, Napapit; Panichareon, Lawan

doi:10.1016/j.jns.2013.07.2009

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the meta-analysis of gait speed indicated no significant differences between robotics and conventional training, with the exception of chronic stroke survivors, who showed a slight positive effect of robotic training in their gait speed [ 45 ]. Overall, it seems that robot-assisted gait training, in addition to conventional therapy, is significantly better than stand-alone conventional overground gait training in subacute stroke patients in terms of gait speed, whereas such superiority is not appreciable when comparing stand-alone robotic training to stand-alone overground gait training [ 46 ]. Noteworthy, there is a consistent discrepancy between the available studies focusing on robot-assisted gait training versus overground gait training with respect to training programming and the robotic device employed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic versus Conventional Overground Gait Training in Subacute Stroke Survivors: A Multicenter Controlled Clinical Trial

Pournajaf¹,

Calabrò²,

Naro³

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although stroke survivors can benefit from robotic gait rehabilitation, stationary robot-assisted gait training needs further investigation. In this paper, we investigated the efficacy of this approach (with an exoskeleton or an end-effector robot) in comparison to the conventional overground gait training in subacute stroke survivors. Methods: In a multicenter controlled clinical trial, 89 subacute stroke survivors conducted twenty sessions of robot-assisted gait training (Robotic Group) or overground gait training (Control Group) in addition to the standard daily therapy. The robotic training was performed with an exoskeleton (RobotEXO-group) or an end-effector (RobotEND-group). Clinical outcomes were assessed before (T0) and after (T1) the treatment. The walking speed during the 10-Meter Walk Test (10 MWT) was the primary outcome of this study, and secondary outcomes were the 6-Minute Walk Test (6 MWT), Timed Up and Go test (TUG), and the modified Barthel Index (mBI). Results: The main characteristics assessed in the Robotic and Control groups did not differ at baseline. A significant benefit was detected from the 10 MWT in the Robotic Group at the end of the study period (primary endpoint). A benefit was also observed from the following parameters: 6 MWT, TUG, and mBI. Moreover, patients belonging to the Robot Group outperformed the Control Group in gait speed, endurance, balance, and ADL. The RobotEND-group improved their walking speed more than the RobotEXO-group. Conclusion: The stationary robot-assisted training improved walking ability better than the conventional training in subacute stroke survivors. These results suggest that people with subacute stroke may benefit from Robot-Assisted training in potentiating gait speed and endurance. Our results also support that end-effector robots would be superior to exoskeleton robots for improving gait speed enhancement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%