4.7 Article

Comparisons between end-effector and exoskeleton rehabilitation robots regarding upper extremity function among chronic stroke patients with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-58630-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Translational Research Center for Rehabilitation Robots, Korea National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [NRCTR-IN15002, NRCTR-IN16002]
  2. Ministry of Health & Welfare (MHOW), Republic of Korea [NRCTR-IN16002, NRCTR-IN15002] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

End-effector (EE) and exoskeleton (Exo) robots have not been directly compared previously. The present study aimed to directly compare EE and Exo robots in chronic stroke patients with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment. This single-blinded, randomised controlled trial included 38 patients with stroke who were admitted to the rehabilitation hospital. The patients were equally divided into EE and Exo groups. Baseline characteristics, including sex, age, stroke type, brain lesion side (left/right), stroke duration, Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)-Upper Extremity score, and Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) score, were assessed. Additionally, impairment level (FMA, motor status score), activity (WMFT), and participation (stroke impact scale [SIS]) were evaluated. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. After the intervention, improvements were significantly better in the EE group with regard to activity and participation (WMFT-Functional ability rating scale, WMFT-Time, and SIS-Participation). There was no intervention-related adverse event. The EE robot intervention is better than the Exo robot intervention with regard to activity and participation among chronic stroke patients with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment. Further research is needed to confirm this novel finding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据