Jessica McCabe1, Michelle Monkiewicz1, John Holcomb2, Svetlana Pundik1, Janis J Daly3. 1. Stroke Motor Control/Motor Learning Laboratory, Louis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. 2. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH. 3. Stroke Motor Control/Motor Learning Laboratory, Louis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: janis.daly@neurology.ufl.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare response to upper-limb treatment using robotics plus motor learning (ML) versus functional electrical stimulation (FES) plus ML versus ML alone, according to a measure of complex functional everyday tasks for chronic, severely impaired stroke survivors. DESIGN: Single-blind, randomized trial. SETTING: Medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Enrolled subjects (N=39) were >1 year postsingle stroke (attrition rate=10%; 35 completed the study). INTERVENTIONS: All groups received treatment 5d/wk for 5h/d (60 sessions), with unique treatment as follows: ML alone (n=11) (5h/d partial- and whole-task practice of complex functional tasks), robotics plus ML (n=12) (3.5h/d of ML and 1.5h/d of shoulder/elbow robotics), and FES plus ML (n=12) (3.5h/d of ML and 1.5h/d of FES wrist/hand coordination training). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary measure: Arm Motor Ability Test (AMAT), with 13 complex functional tasks; secondary measure: upper-limb Fugl-Meyer coordination scale (FM). RESULTS: There was no significant difference found in treatment response across groups (AMAT: P≥.584; FM coordination: P≥.590). All 3 treatment groups demonstrated clinically and statistically significant improvement in response to treatment (AMAT and FM coordination: P≤.009). A group treatment paradigm of 1:3 (therapist/patient) ratio proved feasible for provision of the intensive treatment. No adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Severely impaired stroke survivors with persistent (>1y) upper-extremity dysfunction can make clinically and statistically significant gains in coordination and functional task performance in response to robotics plus ML, FES plus ML, and ML alone in an intensive and long-duration intervention; no group differences were found. Additional studies are warranted to determine the effectiveness of these methods in the clinical setting.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare response to upper-limb treatment using robotics plus motor learning (ML) versus functional electrical stimulation (FES) plus ML versus ML alone, according to a measure of complex functional everyday tasks for chronic, severely impaired stroke survivors. DESIGN: Single-blind, randomized trial. SETTING: Medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Enrolled subjects (N=39) were >1 year postsingle stroke (attrition rate=10%; 35 completed the study). INTERVENTIONS: All groups received treatment 5d/wk for 5h/d (60 sessions), with unique treatment as follows: ML alone (n=11) (5h/d partial- and whole-task practice of complex functional tasks), robotics plus ML (n=12) (3.5h/d of ML and 1.5h/d of shoulder/elbow robotics), and FES plus ML (n=12) (3.5h/d of ML and 1.5h/d of FES wrist/hand coordination training). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary measure: Arm Motor Ability Test (AMAT), with 13 complex functional tasks; secondary measure: upper-limb Fugl-Meyer coordination scale (FM). RESULTS: There was no significant difference found in treatment response across groups (AMAT: P≥.584; FM coordination: P≥.590). All 3 treatment groups demonstrated clinically and statistically significant improvement in response to treatment (AMAT and FM coordination: P≤.009). A group treatment paradigm of 1:3 (therapist/patient) ratio proved feasible for provision of the intensive treatment. No adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Severely impaired stroke survivors with persistent (>1y) upper-extremity dysfunction can make clinically and statistically significant gains in coordination and functional task performance in response to robotics plus ML, FES plus ML, and ML alone in an intensive and long-duration intervention; no group differences were found. Additional studies are warranted to determine the effectiveness of these methods in the clinical setting.
Authors: Mary Ellen Stoykov; Erin King; Fabian J David; Amanda Vatinno; Louis Fogg; Daniel M Corcos Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci Date: 2020 Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Lucy Dodakian; Alison L McKenzie; Vu Le; Jill See; Kristin Pearson-Fuhrhop; Erin Burke Quinlan; Robert J Zhou; Renee Augsberger; Xuan A Tran; Nizan Friedman; David J Reinkensmeyer; Steven C Cramer Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Helen Rodgers; Helen Bosomworth; Hermano I Krebs; Frederike van Wijck; Denise Howel; Nina Wilson; Tracy Finch; Natasha Alvarado; Laura Ternent; Cristina Fernandez-Garcia; Lydia Aird; Sreeman Andole; David L Cohen; Jesse Dawson; Gary A Ford; Richard Francis; Steven Hogg; Niall Hughes; Christopher I Price; Duncan L Turner; Luke Vale; Scott Wilkes; Lisa Shaw Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Anthony M Dutcher; Khangy V Truong; Dallas D Miller; Rachel P Allred; Evan Nudi; Theresa A Jones Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Steven C Cramer; Vu Le; Jeffrey L Saver; Lucy Dodakian; Jill See; Renee Augsburger; Alison McKenzie; Robert J Zhou; Nina L Chiu; Jutta Heckhausen; Jessica M Cassidy; Walt Scacchi; Megan Therese Smith; A M Barrett; Jayme Knutson; Dylan Edwards; David Putrino; Kunal Agrawal; Kenneth Ngo; Elliot J Roth; David L Tirschwell; Michelle L Woodbury; Ross Zafonte; Wenle Zhao; Judith Spilker; Steven L Wolf; Joseph P Broderick; Scott Janis Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 9.910