Mitsuhiro Ochi1, Futoshi Wada2, Satoru Saeki3, Kenji Hachisuka4. 1. University of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishi-ku, 8078555 Kitakyushu, Japan. Electronic address: wochi@med.uoeh-u.ac.jp. 2. University of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishi-ku, 8078555 Kitakyushu, Japan. Electronic address: f-wada@med.uoeh-u.ac.jp. 3. University of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishi-ku, 8078555 Kitakyushu, Japan. Electronic address: sae@med.uoeh-u.ac.jp. 4. University of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishi-ku, 8078555 Kitakyushu, Japan. Electronic address: kenhachi@med.uoeh-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was a prospective, randomized, open, blinded-endpoint trial with the aim of examining whether gait training with a gait-assistance robot (GAR) improves gait disturbances in subacute non-ambulatory hemiplegic stroke patients more than overground conventional gait training. The GAR adopts a robot arm control system with full weight bearing and foot pressure visual biofeedback. METHODS:Twenty-six hemiplegic patients were randomly assigned to either the GAR-assisted gait training (GAGT) group or the overground conventional gait training (OCGT) group. Both groups underwent 60 min of standard physical therapy and 20 min of GAGT or OCGT 5 days a week for 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Functional Ambulation Classification (FAC). The secondary outcome measures were the peak torque of the extensor muscles in the lower extremities and a 10-m walking test. The lower extremity function was evaluated using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, and activities of daily living were assessed using the Functional Independence Measure. RESULTS: The GAGT group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in FAC and peak torque on the unaffected side (p=0.02) than the OCGT group. Additionally, gait speed tended to be faster (p=0.07) in the GAGT group. CONCLUSIONS:GAGT combined with standard physical therapy in subacute non-ambulatory hemiplegic patients led to significant improvements in gait and peak torque on the unaffected side compared to OCGT.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This study was a prospective, randomized, open, blinded-endpoint trial with the aim of examining whether gait training with a gait-assistance robot (GAR) improves gait disturbances in subacute non-ambulatory hemiplegic strokepatients more than overground conventional gait training. The GAR adopts a robot arm control system with full weight bearing and foot pressure visual biofeedback. METHODS: Twenty-six hemiplegic patients were randomly assigned to either the GAR-assisted gait training (GAGT) group or the overground conventional gait training (OCGT) group. Both groups underwent 60 min of standard physical therapy and 20 min of GAGT or OCGT 5 days a week for 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Functional Ambulation Classification (FAC). The secondary outcome measures were the peak torque of the extensor muscles in the lower extremities and a 10-m walking test. The lower extremity function was evaluated using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, and activities of daily living were assessed using the Functional Independence Measure. RESULTS: The GAGT group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in FAC and peak torque on the unaffected side (p=0.02) than the OCGT group. Additionally, gait speed tended to be faster (p=0.07) in the GAGT group. CONCLUSIONS:GAGT combined with standard physical therapy in subacute non-ambulatory hemiplegic patients led to significant improvements in gait and peak torque on the unaffected side compared to OCGT.
Authors: Jan Mehrholz; Simone Thomas; Cordula Werner; Joachim Kugler; Marcus Pohl; Bernhard Elsner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-10
Authors: Juliet Am Haarman; Jasper Reenalda; Jaap H Buurke; Herman van der Kooij; Johan S Rietman Journal: J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng Date: 2016-11-29
Authors: Ji-Eun Cho; Jun Sang Yoo; Kyoung Eun Kim; Sung Tae Cho; Woo Seok Jang; Ki Hun Cho; Wan-Hee Lee Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 3.411