The Effect of an Arm Supporting Training Device in Sub-Acute Stroke Patients: Randomized Clinical Trial

Hand rehabilitation based on the RobHand exoskeleton in stroke patients: A case series study

Introduction: The RobHand (Robot for Hand Rehabilitation) is a robotic neuromotor rehabilitation exoskeleton that assists in performing flexion and extension movements of the fingers. The present case study assesses changes in manual function and hand muscle strength of four selected stroke patients after completion of an established training program. In addition, safety and user satisfaction are also evaluated. Methods: The training program consisted of 16 sessions; two 60-minute training sessions per week for eight consecutive weeks. During each session, patients moved through six consecutive rehabilitation stages using the RobHand. Manual function assessments were applied before and after the training program and safety tests were carried out after each session. A user evaluation questionnaire was filled out after each patient completed the program. Results: The safety test showed the absence of significant adverse events, such as skin lesions or fatigue. An average score of 4 out of 5 was obtained on the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 Scale. Users were very satisfied with the weight, comfort, and quality of professional services. A Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that there were not statistically significant changes in the manual function tests between the beginning and the end of the training program. Discussion: It can be concluded that the RobHand is a safe rehabilitation technology and users were satisfied with the system. No statistically significant differences in manual function were found. This could be due to the high influence of the stroke stage on motor recovery since the study was performed with chronic patients. Hence, future studies should evaluate the rehabilitation effectiveness of the repetitive use of the RobHand exoskeleton on subacute patients. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05598892?id=NCT05598892&draw=2&rank=1, identifier NCT05598892.

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke

BACKGROUND

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training devices are used in rehabilitation, and may help to improve arm function after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength in people after stroke. We also assessed the acceptability and safety of the therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register (last searched January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2018), Embase (1980 to January 2018), CINAHL (1982 to January 2018), AMED (1985 to January 2018), SPORTDiscus (1949 to January 2018), PEDro (searched February 2018), Compendex (1972 to January 2018), and Inspec (1969 to January 2018). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, experts, and researchers in our field, as well as manufacturers of commercial devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for recovery of arm function with other rehabilitation or placebo interventions, or no treatment, for people after stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence, and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 trials (involving 1619 participants) in this update of our review. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training improved activities of daily living scores (SMD 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.52, P = 0.0005; I² = 59%; 24 studies, 957 participants, high-quality evidence), arm function (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.46, P < 0.0001, I² = 36%, 41 studies, 1452 participants, high-quality evidence), and arm muscle strength (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.77, P = 0.003, I² = 76%, 23 studies, 826 participants, high-quality evidence). Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not increase the risk of participant dropout (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, P = 0.93, I² = 0%, 45 studies, 1619 participants, high-quality evidence), and adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who receive electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training after stroke might improve their activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength. However, the results must be interpreted with caution although the quality of the evidence was high, because there were variations between the trials in: the intensity, duration, and amount of training; type of treatment; participant characteristics; and measurements used.

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke

BACKGROUND

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training devices are used in rehabilitation, and may help to improve arm function after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength in people after stroke. We also assessed the acceptability and safety of the therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register (last searched February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015), AMED (1985 to March 2015), SPORTDiscus (1949 to March 2015), PEDro (searched April 2015), Compendex (1972 to March 2015), and Inspec (1969 to March 2015). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, experts, and researchers in our field, as well as manufacturers of commercial devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for recovery of arm function with other rehabilitation or placebo interventions, or no treatment, for people after stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 trials (involving 1160 participants) in this update of our review. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training improved activities of daily living scores (SMD 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.64, P = 0.005, I² = 62%), arm function (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.51, P < 0.0001, I² = 36%), and arm muscle strength (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.70, P = 0.04, I² = 72%), but the quality of the evidence was low to very low. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not increase the risk of participant drop-out (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03, P = 0.84, I² = 0%) with moderate-quality evidence, and adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who receive electromechanical and robot-assisted arm and hand training after stroke might improve their activities of daily living, arm and hand function, and arm and hand muscle strength. However, the results must be interpreted with caution because the quality of the evidence was low to very low, and there were variations between the trials in the intensity, duration, and amount of training; type of treatment; and participant characteristics.