ArmAssist Robotic System versus Matched Conventional Therapy for Poststroke Upper Limb Rehabilitation: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Loading...
Identifiers
Publication date
2017
Advisors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
HINDAWI LTD, ADAM HOUSE, 3RD FLR, 1 FITZROY SQ, LONDON, WIT 5HE, ENGLAND
Citations
Export
Abstract
The ArmAssist is a simple low-cost robotic system for upper limb motor training that combines known benefits of repetitive task-oriented training, greater intensity of practice, and less dependence on therapist assistance. The aim of this preliminary study was to compare the efficacy of ArmAssist (AA) robotic training against matched conventional arm training in subacute stroke subjects with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment. Twenty-six subjects were enrolled within 3 months of stroke and randomly assigned to the AA group or Control group (n = 13 each). Both groups were trained 5 days per week for 3 weeks. The primary outcome measure was Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) motor score, and the secondary outcomes were Wolf Motor Function Test-Functional Ability Scale (WMFT-FAS) and Barthel index (BI). The AA group, in comparison to the Control group, showed significantly greater increases in FMA-UE score (18.0 +/- 9.4 versus 7.5 +/- 5.5, p = 0.002) and WMFT-FAS score (14.1 +/- 7.9 versus 6.7 +/- 7.8, p = 0.025) after 3 weeks of treatment, whereas the increase in BI was not significant (21.2 +/- 24.8 versus 13.1 +/- 10.7, p = 0.292). There were no adverse events. We conclude that arm training using the AA robotic device is safe and able to reduce motor deficits more effectively than matched conventional arm training in subacute phase of stroke.
Description
Keywords
Type
Citation
Tomić, Tijana J. Dimkić, Andrej M. Savić, Aleksandra S. Vidaković, Sindi Z. Rodić, Milica S. Isaković, Cristina Rodríguez-de-Pablo, Thierry Keller, and Ljubica M. Konstantinović. “ArmAssist Robotic System Versus Matched Conventional Therapy for Poststroke Upper Limb Rehabilitation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.” BioMed Research International 2017 (2017): 1–7. doi:10.1155/2017/7659893.