3.9 Article

Robot-assisted upper-limb therapy in acute rehabilitation setting following stroke: Department of Veterans Affairs multisite clinical trial

Journal

Publisher

JOURNAL REHAB RES & DEV
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2010.04.0062

Keywords

acute; arm; bilateral; dose-response; hemiparesis; intensity; rehabilitation; robotics; stroke; therapy

Categories

Funding

  1. VA Rehabilitation Research and Development Service [B2695I]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This randomized, controlled, multisite Department of Veterans Affairs clinical trial assessed robot-assisted (RA) upper-limb therapy with the Mirror Image Movement Enabler (MIME) in the acute stroke rehabilitation setting. Hemiparetic subjects (n = 54) received RA therapy using MIME for either up to 15 hours (low-dose) or 30 hours (high-dose) or received up to 15 hours of additional conventional therapy in addition to usual care (control). The primary outcome measure was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA). The secondary outcome measures were the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Wolf Motor Function Test, Motor Power, and Ashworth scores at intake, discharge, and 6-month follow-up. Mean duration of study treatment was 8.6, 15.8, and 9.4 hours for the low-dose, high-dose, and control groups, respectively. Gains in the primary outcome measure were not significantly different between groups at follow-up. Significant correlations were found at discharge between FMA gains and the dose and intensity of RA. Intensity also correlated with FMA gain at 6 months. The high-dose group had greater FIM gains than controls at discharge and greater tone but no difference in FIM changes compared with low-dose subjects at 6 months. As used during acute rehabilitation, motor-control changes at follow-up were no less with MIME than with additional conventional therapy. Intensity of training with MIME was positively correlated with motor-control gains.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available