4.6 Review

Synergic Effect of Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation and Antispasticity Therapy: A Narrative Review

期刊

LIFE-BASEL
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life13020252

关键词

stroke; spinal cord injury; robotic-assisted therapy; antispasticity therapy; rehabilitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The combination of robot-assisted training and antispasticity therapy can improve lower limb function but does not reduce spasticity in stroke and spinal cord injury patients.
Background: Stroke and spinal cord injury are neurological disorders that cause disability and exert tremendous social and economic effects. Robot-assisted training (RAT), which may reduce spasticity, is widely applied in neurorehabilitation. The combined effects of RAT and antispasticity therapies, such as botulinum toxin A injection therapy, on functional recovery remain unclear. This review evaluated the effects of combined therapy on functional recovery and spasticity reduction. Materials and Methods: Studies evaluating the efficacy of RAT and antispasticity therapy in promoting functional recovery and reducing spasticity were systemically reviewed. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The modified Jadad scale was applied for quality assessment. Functional assessments, such as the Berg Balance Scale, were used to measure the primary outcome. Spasticity assessments, such as the modified Ashworth Scale, were used to measure the secondary outcome. Results: Combined therapy improves functional recovery in the lower limbs but does not reduce spasticity in the upper or lower limbs. Conclusions: The evidence supports that combined therapy improves lower limb function but does not reduce spasticity. The considerable risk of bias among the included studies and the enrolled patients who did not receive interventions within the golden period of intervention are two major factors that should be considered when interpreting these results. Additional high-quality RCTs are required.

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

4.6
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