The FeSTivaLS trial protocol: a randomized evaluation of the efficacy of functional strength training on enhancing walking and upper limb function later post stroke

A Semi-passive Planar Manipulandum for Upper-Extremity Rehabilitation

Robotic rehabilitation is a promising approach to treat individuals with neurological or orthopedic disorders. However, despite significant advancements in the field of rehabilitation robotics, this technology has found limited traction in clinical practice. A key reason for this issue is that most robots are expensive, bulky, and not scalable for in-home rehabilitation. Here, we introduce a semi-passive rehabilitation robot (SepaRRo) that uses controllable passive actuators (i.e., brakes) to provide controllable resistances at the end-effector over a large workspace in a manner that is cost-effective and safe for in-home use. We also validated the device through theoretical analyses, hardware experiments, and human subject experiments. We found that by including kinematic redundancies in the robot's linkages, the device was able to provide controllable resistances to purely resist the movement of the end-effector, or to gently steer (i.e., perturb) its motion away from the intended path. When testing these capabilities on human subjects, we found that many of the upper-extremity muscles could be selectively targeted based on the forcefield prescribed to the user. These results indicate that SepaRRo could serve as a low-cost therapeutic tool for upper-extremity rehabilitation; however, further testing is required to evaluate its therapeutic benefits in patient population.

A Novel Application of Eddy Current Braking for Functional Strength Training During Gait

Functional strength training is becoming increasingly popular when rehabilitating individuals with neurological injury such as stroke or cerebral palsy. Typically, resistance during walking is provided using cable robots or weights that are secured to the distal shank of the subject. However, there exists no device that is wearable and capable of providing resistance across the joint, allowing over ground gait training. In this study, we created a lightweight and wearable device using eddy current braking to provide resistance to the knee. We then validated the device by having subjects wear it during a walking task through varying resistance levels. Electromyography and kinematics were collected to assess the biomechanical effects of the device on the wearer. We found that eddy current braking provided resistance levels suitable for functional strength training of leg muscles in a package that is both lightweight and wearable. Applying resistive forces at the knee joint during gait resulted in significant increases in muscle activation of many of the muscles tested. A brief period of training also resulted in significant aftereffects once the resistance was removed. These results support the feasibility of the device for functional strength training during gait. Future research is warranted to test the clinical potential of the device in an injured population.

Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of functional strength training for people between six months and five years after stroke: FeSTivaLS trial

BACKGROUND

Functional Strength Training (FST) could enhance recovery late after stroke. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a subsequent fully powered, randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

The study was designed as a randomized, observer-blind trial. Both interventions were provided for up to one hour a day, four days a week, for six weeks. Evaluation points were before randomization (baseline), after six weeks intervention (outcome), and six weeks thereafter (follow-up). The study took place in participants' own homes. Participants (n = 52) were a mean of 24.4 months after stroke with a mean age of 68.3 years with 67.3% male. All had difficulty using their paretic upper (UL) and lower limb (LL). Participants were allocated to FST-UL or FST-LL by an independent randomization service. The outcome measures were recruitment rate, attrition rate, practicality of recruitment strategies, occurrence of adverse reactions, acceptability of FST, and estimation of sample size for a subsequent trial. Primary clinical efficacy outcomes were the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and the Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC). Analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of participants' views of FST. A power calculation used estimates of clinical efficacy variance to estimate sample size for a subsequent trial.

RESULTS

The screening process identified 1,127 stroke survivors of whom 52 (4.6%) were recruited. The recruitment rate was higher for referral from community therapists than for systematic identification of people discharged from an acute stroke unit. The attrition rate was 15.5% at the outcome and follow-up time-points. None of the participants experienced an adverse reaction. The participants who remained in the study at outcome had received 68% of the total possible amount of therapy. Participants reported that their experience of FST provided a sense of purpose and involvement and increased their confidence in performing activities. The power calculation provides estimation that 150 participants in each group will be required for a subsequent clinical trial.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that a subsequent clinical trial was feasible with modifications to the recruitment strategy to be used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Controlled-trials.com ISCTN71632550, 30 January 2009.

Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke

BACKGROUND

Various approaches to physical rehabilitation may be used after stroke, and considerable controversy and debate surround the effectiveness of relative approaches. Some physiotherapists base their treatments on a single approach; others use a mixture of components from several different approaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether physical rehabilitation approaches are effective in recovery of function and mobility in people with stroke, and to assess if any one physical rehabilitation approach is more effective than any other approach.For the previous versions of this review, the objective was to explore the effect of 'physiotherapy treatment approaches' based on historical classifications of orthopaedic, neurophysiological or motor learning principles, or on a mixture of these treatment principles. For this update of the review, the objective was to explore the effects of approaches that incorporate individual treatment components, categorised as functional task training, musculoskeletal intervention (active), musculoskeletal intervention (passive), neurophysiological intervention, cardiopulmonary intervention, assistive device or modality.In addition, we sought to explore the impact of time after stroke, geographical location of the study, dose of the intervention, provider of the intervention and treatment components included within an intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2012), EMBASE (1980 to December 2012), AMED (1985 to December 2012) and CINAHL (1982 to December 2012). We searched reference lists and contacted experts and researchers who have an interest in stroke rehabilitation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical rehabilitation approaches aimed at promoting the recovery of function or mobility in adult participants with a clinical diagnosis of stroke. Outcomes included measures of independence in activities of daily living (ADL), motor function, balance, gait velocity and length of stay. We included trials comparing physical rehabilitation approaches versus no treatment, usual care or attention control and those comparing different physical rehabilitation approaches.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently categorised identified trials according to the selection criteria, documented their methodological quality and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 96 studies (10,401 participants) in this review. More than half of the studies (50/96) were carried out in China. Generally the studies were heterogeneous, and many were poorly reported.Physical rehabilitation was found to have a beneficial effect, as compared with no treatment, on functional recovery after stroke (27 studies, 3423 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.97, for Independence in ADL scales), and this effect was noted to persist beyond the length of the intervention period (nine studies, 540 participants; SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.04). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference based on dose of intervention (P value < 0.0001, for independence in ADL), indicating that a dose of 30 to 60 minutes per day delivered five to seven days per week is effective. This evidence principally arises from studies carried out in China. Subgroup analyses also suggest significant benefit associated with a shorter time since stroke (P value 0.003, for independence in ADL).We found physical rehabilitation to be more effective than usual care or attention control in improving motor function (12 studies, 887 participants; SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55), balance (five studies, 246 participants; SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56) and gait velocity (14 studies, 1126 participants; SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.60). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant difference based on dose of intervention (P value 0.02 for motor function), indicating that a dose of 30 to 60 minutes delivered five to seven days a week provides significant benefit. Subgroup analyses also suggest significant benefit associated with a shorter time since stroke (P value 0.05, for independence in ADL).No one physical rehabilitation approach was more (or less) effective than any other approach in improving independence in ADL (eight studies, 491 participants; test for subgroup differences: P value 0.71) or motor function (nine studies, 546 participants; test for subgroup differences: P value 0.41). These findings are supported by subgroup analyses carried out for comparisons of intervention versus no treatment or usual care, which identified no significant effects of different treatment components or categories of interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Physical rehabilitation, comprising a selection of components from different approaches, is effective for recovery of function and mobility after stroke. Evidence related to dose of physical therapy is limited by substantial heterogeneity and does not support robust conclusions. No one approach to physical rehabilitation is any more (or less) effective in promoting recovery of function and mobility after stroke. Therefore, evidence indicates that physical rehabilitation should not be limited to compartmentalised, named approaches, but rather should comprise clearly defined, well-described, evidenced-based physical treatments, regardless of historical or philosophical origin.

Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke

BACKGROUND

Various approaches to physical rehabilitation may be used after stroke, and considerable controversy and debate surround the effectiveness of relative approaches. Some physiotherapists base their treatments on a single approach; others use a mixture of components from several different approaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether physical rehabilitation approaches are effective in recovery of function and mobility in people with stroke, and to assess if any one physical rehabilitation approach is more effective than any other approach.For the previous versions of this review, the objective was to explore the effect of 'physiotherapy treatment approaches' based on historical classifications of orthopaedic, neurophysiological or motor learning principles, or on a mixture of these treatment principles. For this update of the review, the objective was to explore the effects of approaches that incorporate individual treatment components, categorised as functional task training, musculoskeletal intervention (active), musculoskeletal intervention (passive), neurophysiological intervention, cardiopulmonary intervention, assistive device or modality.In addition, we sought to explore the impact of time after stroke, geographical location of the study, dose of the intervention, provider of the intervention and treatment components included within an intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2012), EMBASE (1980 to December 2012), AMED (1985 to December 2012) and CINAHL (1982 to December 2012). We searched reference lists and contacted experts and researchers who have an interest in stroke rehabilitation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical rehabilitation approaches aimed at promoting the recovery of function or mobility in adult participants with a clinical diagnosis of stroke. Outcomes included measures of independence in activities of daily living (ADL), motor function, balance, gait velocity and length of stay. We included trials comparing physical rehabilitation approaches versus no treatment, usual care or attention control and those comparing different physical rehabilitation approaches.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently categorised identified trials according to the selection criteria, documented their methodological quality and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 96 studies (10,401 participants) in this review. More than half of the studies (50/96) were carried out in China. Generally the studies were heterogeneous, and many were poorly reported.Physical rehabilitation was found to have a beneficial effect, as compared with no treatment, on functional recovery after stroke (27 studies, 3423 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.97, for Independence in ADL scales), and this effect was noted to persist beyond the length of the intervention period (nine studies, 540 participants; SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.04). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference based on dose of intervention (P value < 0.0001, for independence in ADL), indicating that a dose of 30 to 60 minutes per day delivered five to seven days per week is effective. This evidence principally arises from studies carried out in China. Subgroup analyses also suggest significant benefit associated with a shorter time since stroke (P value 0.003, for independence in ADL).We found physical rehabilitation to be more effective than usual care or attention control in improving motor function (12 studies, 887 participants; SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55), balance (five studies, 246 participants; SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56) and gait velocity (14 studies, 1126 participants; SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.60). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant difference based on dose of intervention (P value 0.02 for motor function), indicating that a dose of 30 to 60 minutes delivered five to seven days a week provides significant benefit. Subgroup analyses also suggest significant benefit associated with a shorter time since stroke (P value 0.05, for independence in ADL).No one physical rehabilitation approach was more (or less) effective than any other approach in improving independence in ADL (eight studies, 491 participants; test for subgroup differences: P value 0.71) or motor function (nine studies, 546 participants; test for subgroup differences: P value 0.41). These findings are supported by subgroup analyses carried out for comparisons of intervention versus no treatment or usual care, which identified no significant effects of different treatment components or categories of interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Physical rehabilitation, comprising a selection of components from different approaches, is effective for recovery of function and mobility after stroke. Evidence related to dose of physical therapy is limited by substantial heterogeneity and does not support robust conclusions. No one approach to physical rehabilitation is any more (or less) effective in promoting recovery of function and mobility after stroke. Therefore, evidence indicates that physical rehabilitation should not be limited to compartmentalised, named approaches, but rather should comprise clearly defined, well-described, evidenced-based physical treatments, regardless of historical or philosophical origin.