Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTomić, Tijana J. Dimkić
dc.contributor.authorSavić, Andrej M.
dc.contributor.authorVidaković, Aleksandra S.
dc.contributor.authorRodić, Sindi Z.
dc.contributor.authorIsaković, Milica S.
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez-de-Pablo, Cristina
dc.contributor.authorKeller, Thierry
dc.contributor.authorKonstantinović, Ljubica M.
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-10T11:29:39Z
dc.date.available2017-11-10T11:29:39Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationTomić, 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.en
dc.identifier.issn2314-6133en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11556/455
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en
dc.description.sponsorshipAndrej M. Savic and Milica S. Isakovic are employed at Tecnalia Serbia Ltd., Belgrade, Serbia, and Cristina Rodriguez-de-Pablo and Thierry Keller are employed at TECNALIA, San Sebastian, Spain, from which they receive financial compensation. No external support was received for conducting this study.en
dc.language.isoengen
dc.publisherHINDAWI LTD, ADAM HOUSE, 3RD FLR, 1 FITZROY SQ, LONDON, WIT 5HE, ENGLANDen
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.titleArmAssist Robotic System versus Matched Conventional Therapy for Poststroke Upper Limb Rehabilitation: A Randomized Clinical Trialen
dc.typearticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1155/2017/7659893en
dc.isiYesen
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen
dc.subject.keywordsFUGL-MEYER ASSESSMENTen
dc.subject.keywordsMOTOR-FUNCTION-TESTen
dc.subject.keywordsACUTE STROKEen
dc.subject.keywordsASSISTED THERAPYen
dc.subject.keywordsRECOVERYen
dc.subject.keywordsARMen
dc.subject.keywordsRELIABILITYen
dc.subject.keywordsPERFORMANCEen
dc.subject.keywordsPARESISen
dc.identifier.essn2314-6141en
dc.journal.titleBioMed Research Internationalen
dc.page.final7en
dc.page.initial1en
dc.volume.number2017en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

    Show simple item record

    Attribution 4.0 InternationalExcept where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 4.0 International