4.6 Article

Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Lokomat in Subacute Stroke

Journal

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 5-13

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1545968308326632

Keywords

Hemiplegia; Rehabilitation; Gait; Recovery of function; Robotics; Walking

Funding

  1. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research [H133E020724]
  2. PI
  3. Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation [RA2-0203-2B]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To compare the efficacy of robotic-assisted gait training with the Lokomat to conventional gait training in individuals with subacute stroke. Methods. A total of 63 participants < 6 months poststroke with an initial walking speed between 0.1 to 0.6 m/s completed the multicenter, randomized clinical trial. All participants received twenty-four 1-hour sessions of either Lokomat or conventional gait training. Outcome measures were evaluated prior to training, after 12 and 24 sessions, and at a 3-month follow-up exam. Self-selected overground walking speed and distance walked in 6 minutes were the primary outcome measures, whereas secondary outcome measures included balance, mobility and function, cadence and symmetry, level of disability, and quality of life measures. Results. Participants who received conventional gait training experienced significantly greater gains in walking speed (P = .002) and distance (P = .03) than those trained on the Lokomat. These differences were maintained at the 3-month follow-up evaluation. Secondary measures were not different between the 2 groups, although a 2-fold greater improvement in cadence was observed in the conventional versus Lokomat group. Conclusions. For subacute stroke participants with moderate to severe gait impairments, the diversity of conventional gait training interventions appears to be more effective than robotic-assisted gait training for facilitating returns in walking ability.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available