S N Housley1, A R Garlow1, K Ducote1, A Howard1, T Thomas1, D Wu1, K Richards1, A J Butler2. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, Georgia State University, USA. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, Georgia State University, USA; Department of Veteran's Affairs, Atlanta Rehabilitation Research and Development Center of Excellence, USA; Neuroscience Institute, Joint Center for Advanced Brain Imaging, Center for Behavioral Neuroscience, Georgia State University, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An estimated 750,000 Americans experience a stroke annually. Most stroke survivors require rehabilitation. Limited access to rehabilitation facilities has a pronounced burden on functional outcomes and quality of life. Robotic devices deliver reproducible therapy without the need for real-time human oversight. This study examined the efficacy of using home-based, telerobotic-assisted devices (Hand and Foot Mentor: HM and FM) to improve functional ability and reduce depression symptoms, while improving access and cost savings associated with rehabilitation. METHODS: Twenty stroke survivors performed three months of home-based rehabilitation using a robotic device, while a therapist remotely monitored progress. Baseline and end of treatment function and depression symptoms were assessed. Satisfaction with the device and access to therapy were determined using qualitative surveys. Cost analysis was performed to compare home-based, robotic-assisted therapy to clinic-based physical therapy. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, significant improvement in upper extremity function (30.06%, p= 0.046), clinically significant benefits in gait speed (29.03%), moderate improvement in depressive symptoms (28.44%) and modest improvement in distance walked (30.2%) were observed. Participants indicated satisfaction with the device. Home-based robot therapy expanded access to post-stroke rehabilitation for 35% of the people no longer receiving formal services and increased daily access for the remaining 65%, with a cost savings of $2,352 (64.97%) compared to clinic-based therapy. CONCLUSION: Stroke survivors made significant clinically meaningful improvements in the use of their impaired extremities using a robotic device in the home. Home-based, robotic therapy reduced costs, while expanding access to a rehabilitation modality for people who would not otherwise have received care.
INTRODUCTION: An estimated 750,000 Americans experience a stroke annually. Most stroke survivors require rehabilitation. Limited access to rehabilitation facilities has a pronounced burden on functional outcomes and quality of life. Robotic devices deliver reproducible therapy without the need for real-time human oversight. This study examined the efficacy of using home-based, telerobotic-assisted devices (Hand and Foot Mentor: HM and FM) to improve functional ability and reduce depression symptoms, while improving access and cost savings associated with rehabilitation. METHODS: Twenty stroke survivors performed three months of home-based rehabilitation using a robotic device, while a therapist remotely monitored progress. Baseline and end of treatment function and depression symptoms were assessed. Satisfaction with the device and access to therapy were determined using qualitative surveys. Cost analysis was performed to compare home-based, robotic-assisted therapy to clinic-based physical therapy. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, significant improvement in upper extremity function (30.06%, p= 0.046), clinically significant benefits in gait speed (29.03%), moderate improvement in depressive symptoms (28.44%) and modest improvement in distance walked (30.2%) were observed. Participants indicated satisfaction with the device. Home-based robot therapy expanded access to post-stroke rehabilitation for 35% of the people no longer receiving formal services and increased daily access for the remaining 65%, with a cost savings of $2,352 (64.97%) compared to clinic-based therapy. CONCLUSION:Stroke survivors made significant clinically meaningful improvements in the use of their impaired extremities using a robotic device in the home. Home-based, robotic therapy reduced costs, while expanding access to a rehabilitation modality for people who would not otherwise have received care.
Authors: Steven L Wolf; Komal Sahu; R Curtis Bay; Sharon Buchanan; Aimee Reiss; Susan Linder; Anson Rosenfeldt; Jay Alberts Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Marianne Beninato; Kathleen M Gill-Body; Sara Salles; Paul C Stark; Randie M Black-Schaffer; Joel Stein Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Arlene Schmid; Pamela W Duncan; Stephanie Studenski; Sue Min Lai; Lorie Richards; Subashan Perera; Samuel S Wu Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-05-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Reza Koiler; Elham Bakhshipour; Joseph Glutting; Amy Lalime; Dexter Kofa; Nancy Getchell Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kristen M Triandafilou; Daria Tsoupikova; Alexander J Barry; Kelly N Thielbar; Nikolay Stoykov; Derek G Kamper Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 4.262