| Literature DB >> 27515583 |
Frieder Wittmann1, Jeremia P Held2, Olivier Lambercy1, Michelle L Starkey3, Armin Curt3, Raphael Höver4, Roger Gassert1, Andreas R Luft5,6, Roman R Gonzenbach5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of rehabilitative training after stroke is dose-dependent. Out-patient rehabilitation training is often limited by transport logistics, financial resources and a lack of motivation/compliance. We studied the feasibility of an unsupervised arm therapy for self-directed rehabilitation therapy in patients' homes.Entities:
Keywords: Arm; Feasibility; Rehabilitation; Stroke; Video games; Virtual reality therapy
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27515583 PMCID: PMC4982313 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-016-0182-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Fig. 1System Overview and Study Outline. a: Photograph of a healthy subject using ArmeoSenso. b: Screenshot of the pointing task assessment: the virtual upper- and lower arm and the trunk are displayed. The arm points to a target. c: Sequence of a training session. Before each training session, two automated assessments are performed. d: Study outline: The ArmeoSenso system is installed in the patient's home for six weeks. The patients are assessed clinically before the start, after three weeks, and after six weeks of training. Abbreviations: WMFT: Wolf Motor Function Test; FMA-UE: Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity; NIHSS: National Institute of Health Stroke Scale. *system installation and patient instruction by a therapist
Baseline characteristics
| Mean ± SDa (min, max) | |
|---|---|
| N | 11 |
| Male | 5 |
| Right side affected | 8 |
| Age, y | 60 ± 11.5 (min 42, max 79) |
| Months post stroke | 27 ± 31.5 (min 4, max 118) |
| NIHSSb | 3.3 ± 1.2 (min 1, max 5) |
| mRSc | 1.9 ± 0.1 (min 1, max 3) |
| FMA-UE c | 35.1 ± 19.9 (min 11, max 60) |
| WMFT d | 52 ± 39 (min 16, max 70) |
aStandard deviation
bNational Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (0–42 points)
cmodified Rankin Scale (0–6 points)
cFugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (0–66 points)
dWolf Motor Function Test (0–75 points)
Fig. 2System Usage: a-d: Each symbol represents one patient. a: Weekly training duration for weeks 1–6 and average weekly training duration for each patient. b: Training duration per session. c: Number of days with training. Horizontal lines indicate averages. d: Average weekly training duration in patients with low (<20 points) Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) and intermediate to high (>20 points) FMA-UE score. * indicates significant differences in usage
Fig. 3Arm Function Assessments: a-d: Each symbol represents one patient. a-c: Horizontal bar = average. a: Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) shows significant improvement after six weeks of therapy. b-d: ArmeoSenso-based Assessments. In one instance, a patient did not use the system during a block of two weeks. Here, the previous value was carried forward. b: Arm Workspace Assessment. The workspace is reported as squares, i.e. relative units for the covered workspace and shows significant improvement after six weeks. c: Pointing Task Assessment. The average time to reach targets improves significantly. d: Significant correlation between clinical assessment (Fugl-Meyer assessment after 3 weeks of training) and ArmeoSenso assessment (time to reach target, average of training week 3–4, c)
Fig. 4Trunk Movement during Pointing. Trunk rotation (a, b) and inclination (c, d) (two-weekly average) during pointing movements in the pointing task assessment for one specific target. For comparison, the values of 10 pointing movements performed with the unaffected limb are plotted (N = 8). b + d: To demonstrate the high inter-session variability of trunk rotation and inclination during pointing movements, a complete dataset of one patient (impaired side) is plotted for the same target. Error bars: standard deviation