R Colombo1, I Sterpi2, A Mazzone3, C Delconte4, F Pisano4. 1. "Salvatore Maugeri" Foundation, IRCCS, Service of Bioengineering, Pavia, Italy "Salvatore Maugeri" Foundation, IRCCS, Service of Bioengineering, Veruno (NO), Italy. 2. "Salvatore Maugeri" Foundation, IRCCS, Service of Bioengineering, Pavia, Italy. 3. "Salvatore Maugeri" Foundation, IRCCS, Service of Bioengineering, Veruno (NO), Italy. 4. "Salvatore Maugeri" Foundation, IRCCS, Division of Neurologic Rehabilitation, Veruno (NO), Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic neurorehabilitation, thanks to high dosage/intensity training protocols, has the potential for a greater impact on impairment. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyze how time since the acute event may influence the motor recovery process during robot-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limb. METHODS: A total of 41 patients after stroke were enrolled: 20 in subacute phase, i.e. ≤ 6 months elapsed since their unilateral cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and 21 at chronic stage, i.e. > 6 months since CVA. All subjects underwent 30 minutes of robot-aided rehabilitation twice a day, 5 days a week for at least three weeks of training. Patients were evaluated at the start and end of treatment using the Fugl-Meyer and Modified Ashworth clinical scales and by a set of robot measured kinematic parameters. The time interval from stroke was considered as a grouping factor to analyze its impact on time course of recovery. RESULTS: After training both groups significantly improved their impairment (F = 44.25, p < 0.001) but sub-acute patients showed a greater improvement on the Fugl-Meyer scale than chronic patients. The time course of recovery of the kinematic variables showed higher time constants of motor improvement in the sub-acute than chronic group, but they were one order lower than spontaneous recovery time constants. CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous recovery seems to have a limited impact on the improvement of sub-acute patients, most of their changes being likely due to re-learning during rehabilitation. In addition, a longer recovery time was required to maximize outcome in sub-acute than in chronic patients.
BACKGROUND: Robotic neurorehabilitation, thanks to high dosage/intensity training protocols, has the potential for a greater impact on impairment. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyze how time since the acute event may influence the motor recovery process during robot-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limb. METHODS: A total of 41 patients after stroke were enrolled: 20 in subacute phase, i.e. ≤ 6 months elapsed since their unilateral cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and 21 at chronic stage, i.e. > 6 months since CVA. All subjects underwent 30 minutes of robot-aided rehabilitation twice a day, 5 days a week for at least three weeks of training. Patients were evaluated at the start and end of treatment using the Fugl-Meyer and Modified Ashworth clinical scales and by a set of robot measured kinematic parameters. The time interval from stroke was considered as a grouping factor to analyze its impact on time course of recovery. RESULTS: After training both groups significantly improved their impairment (F = 44.25, p < 0.001) but sub-acute patients showed a greater improvement on the Fugl-Meyer scale than chronic patients. The time course of recovery of the kinematic variables showed higher time constants of motor improvement in the sub-acute than chronic group, but they were one order lower than spontaneous recovery time constants. CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous recovery seems to have a limited impact on the improvement of sub-acute patients, most of their changes being likely due to re-learning during rehabilitation. In addition, a longer recovery time was required to maximize outcome in sub-acute than in chronic patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Robotic therapy; motor recovery; neurorehabilitation; spontaneous recovery; stroke
Authors: Angelo Basteris; Sharon M Nijenhuis; Arno H A Stienen; Jaap H Buurke; Gerdienke B Prange; Farshid Amirabdollahian Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: T Lencioni; L Fornia; T Bowman; A Marzegan; A Caronni; A Turolla; J Jonsdottir; I Carpinella; M Ferrarin Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: M Saes; M I Mohamed Refai; B J F van Beijnum; J B J Bussmann; E P Jansma; P H Veltink; J H Buurke; E E H van Wegen; C G M Meskers; J W Krakauer; G Kwakkel Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 3.919