Does Shorter Rehabilitation Limit Potential Recovery Poststroke?

Upper Extremity Functional Rehabilitation for Stroke Survivors Using Error-Augmented Visual Feedback: Interim Results

Stroke rehabilitation is often terminated once a plateau in motor recovery is observed, but new training modalities have demonstrated that further functional improvement is possible after the onset of the chronic phase. In particular, feedback technologies augmenting error proved to foster the relearning process. Here we explore the possibility of a robot-free implementation of Error-Augmentation (EA), where only visual feedback is distorted. We present the interim results from our ongoing blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial testing the efficacy of parallel bimanual reaching with visual EA. Subjects trained in the virtual environment in 45-minute sessions, three times a week, for three weeks, half with and half without EA. A blinded therapist performed clinical evaluations before, 1 week after, and two months after training. Available results showed that both groups significantly improved. An advantage in the treatment group could be tracked at all time points, but no statistical significance was detectable between groups. Gains in the two groups were found to be compatible with the results of previous studies using robots and may prove to have similar effectiveness without the need for a costly and complicated robotic device. One new finding was that EA caused significantly higher inter-trial variability.

The effect of time spent in rehabilitation on activity limitation and impairment after stroke

BACKGROUND

Stroke affects millions of people every year and is a leading cause of disability, resulting in significant financial cost and reduction in quality of life. Rehabilitation after stroke aims to reduce disability by facilitating recovery of impairment, activity, or participation. One aspect of stroke rehabilitation that may affect outcomes is the amount of time spent in rehabilitation, including minutes provided, frequency (i.e. days per week of rehabilitation), and duration (i.e. time period over which rehabilitation is provided). Effect of time spent in rehabilitation after stroke has been explored extensively in the literature, but findings are inconsistent. Previous systematic reviews with meta-analyses have included studies that differ not only in the amount provided, but also type of rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of 1. more time spent in the same type of rehabilitation on activity measures in people with stroke; 2. difference in total rehabilitation time (in minutes) on recovery of activity in people with stroke; and 3. rehabilitation schedule on activity in terms of: a. average time (minutes) per week undergoing rehabilitation, b. frequency (number of sessions per week) of rehabilitation, and c. total duration of rehabilitation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases, and five trials registers to June 2021. We searched reference lists of identified studies, contacted key authors, and undertook reference searching using Web of Science Cited Reference Search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with stroke that compared different amounts of time spent, greater than zero, in rehabilitation (any non-pharmacological, non-surgical intervention aimed to improve activity after stroke). Studies varied only in the amount of time in rehabilitation between experimental and control conditions. Primary outcome was activities of daily living (ADLs); secondary outcomes were activity measures of upper and lower limbs, motor impairment measures of upper and lower limbs, and serious adverse events (SAE)/death.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and assessed certainty of the evidence using GRADE. For continuous outcomes using different scales, we calculated pooled standardised mean difference (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

The quantitative synthesis of this review comprised 21 parallel RCTs, involving analysed data from 1412 participants.  Time in rehabilitation varied between studies. Minutes provided per week were 90 to 1288. Days per week of rehabilitation were three to seven. Duration of rehabilitation was two weeks to six months. Thirteen studies provided upper limb rehabilitation, five general rehabilitation, two mobilisation training, and one lower limb training. Sixteen studies examined participants in the first six months following stroke; the remaining five included participants more than six months poststroke. Comparison of stroke severity or level of impairment was limited due to variations in measurement. The risk of bias assessment suggests there were issues with the methodological quality of the included studies. There were 76 outcome-level risk of bias assessments: 15 low risk, 37 some concerns, and 24 high risk. When comparing groups that spent more time versus less time in rehabilitation immediately after intervention, we found no difference in rehabilitation for ADL outcomes (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; P = 0.09; I2 = 7%; 14 studies, 864 participants; very low-certainty evidence), activity measures of the upper limb (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.29; P = 0.36; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 426 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and activity measures of the lower limb (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.53; P = 0.08; I2 = 48%; 5 studies, 425 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found an effect in favour of more time in rehabilitation for motor impairment measures of the upper limb (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.58; P = 0.01; I2 = 10%; 9 studies, 287 participants; low-certainty evidence) and of the lower limb (SMD 0.71, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.28; P = 0.01; 1 study, 51 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no intervention-related SAEs. More time in rehabilitation did not affect the risk of SAEs/death (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.85; P = 0.68; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 379 participants; low-certainty evidence), but few studies measured these outcomes. Predefined subgroup analyses comparing studies with a larger difference of total time spent in rehabilitation between intervention groups to studies with a smaller difference found greater improvements for studies with a larger difference. This was statistically significant for ADL outcomes (P = 0.02) and activity measures of the upper limb (P = 0.04), but not for activity measures of the lower limb (P = 0.41) or motor impairment measures of the upper limb (P = 0.06).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

An increase in time spent in the same type of rehabilitation after stroke results in little to no difference in meaningful activities such as activities of daily living and activities of the upper and lower limb but a small benefit in measures of motor impairment (low- to very low-certainty evidence for all findings). If the increase in time spent in rehabilitation exceeds a threshold, this may lead to improved outcomes. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend a minimum beneficial daily amount in clinical practice. The findings of this study are limited by a lack of studies with a significant contrast in amount of additional rehabilitation provided between control and intervention groups. Large, well-designed, high-quality RCTs that measure time spent in all rehabilitation activities (not just interventional) and provide a large contrast (minimum of 1000 minutes) in amount of rehabilitation between groups would provide further evidence for effect of time spent in rehabilitation.

The adjunct of transcranial direct current stimulation to Robot-assisted therapy in upper limb post-stroke treatment

Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) and robot-assisted therapy (RAT) proved to be promising interventions in post-stroke rehabilitation. However, the effects of combining the two treatments are not significantly clear. To determine the effects of combined therapy using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with robot-assisted therapy (RAT) in the impairment of the upper limb in stroke rehabilitation. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and Trial Registries were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials in May 2020. As the outcome, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment score (FMS) was used. A pairwise and a network meta-analysis were performed. 5 RCTs with RAT versus RAT + tDCS groups and 21 RCTs with RAT versus the control group with 892 people were analysed. Of these studies, 10 RCTs evaluated acute-subacute (<8 weeks) people, while 16 chronic people. By analysing the FMS with a pair-wise meta-analysis, we demonstrate significant improvements only in the RAT alone compared to the control (acute-subacute, SMD:4.09 (1.31, 6.87) and chronic, SMD:2.22 (0.99, 3.45)). Instead, performing a network meta-analysis, through an analysis of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) we report a ranking of the effectiveness of the interventions. We assess SUCRA in acute-subacute stroke: Control:0.23, RAT + tDCS:0.31, RAT:0.96 and in chronic stroke: Control:0.06, RAT + tDCS:0.62, RAT:0.82. RAT is, respectively, 96% and 82% likely to be the best-ranked treatment. Despite the limitations, this network meta-analysis appears to demonstrate through the rank of interventions that adding tDCS to RAT is not useful in upper-limb stroke rehabilitation.

Pragmatic Solutions for Stroke Recovery and Improved Quality of Life in Low- and Middle-Income Countries-A Systematic Review

Background: Given the limited healthcare resources in low and middle income countries (LMICs), effective rehabilitation strategies that can be realistically adopted in such settings are required. Objective: A systematic review of literature was conducted to identify pragmatic solutions and outcomes capable of enhancing stroke recovery and quality of life of stroke survivors for low- and middle- income countries. Methods: PubMed, HINARI, and Directory of Open Access Journals databases were searched for published Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) till November 2018. Only completed trials published in English with non-pharmacological interventions on adult stroke survivors were included in the review while published protocols, pilot studies and feasibility analysis of trials were excluded. Obtained data were synthesized thematically and descriptively analyzed. Results: One thousand nine hundred and ninety six studies were identified while 347 (65.22% high quality) RCTs were found to be eligible for the review. The most commonly assessed variables (and outcome measure utility) were activities of daily living [75.79% of the studies, with Barthel Index (37.02%)], motor function [66.57%; with Fugl Meyer scale (71.88%)], and gait [31.12%; with 6 min walk test (38.67%)]. Majority of the innovatively high technology interventions such as robot therapy (95.24%), virtual reality (94.44%), transcranial direct current stimulation (78.95%), transcranial magnetic stimulation (88.0%) and functional electrical stimulation (85.00%) were conducted in high income countries. Several traditional and low-cost interventions such as constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT), resistant and aerobic exercises (R&AE), task oriented therapy (TOT), body weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) were reported to significantly contribute to the recovery of motor function, activity, participation, and improvement of quality of life after stroke. Conclusion: Several pragmatic, in terms of affordability, accessibility and utility, stroke rehabilitation solutions, and outcome measures that can be used in resource-limited settings were found to be effective in facilitating and enhancing post-stroke recovery and quality of life.

Effectiveness and Superiority of Rehabilitative Treatments in Enhancing Motor Recovery Within 6 Months Poststroke: A Systemic Review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of various rehabilitative interventions aimed at enhancing poststroke motor recovery by assessing their effectiveness when compared with no treatment or placebo and their superiority when compared with conventional training program (CTP).

DATA SOURCE

A literature search was based on 19 Cochrane reviews and 26 other reviews. We also updated the searches in PubMed up to September 30, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials associated with 18 experimented training programs (ETP) were included if they evaluated the effects of the programs on either upper extremity (UE) or lower extremity (LE) motor recovery among adults within 6 months poststroke; included ≥10 participants in each arm; and had an intervention duration of ≥10 consecutive weekdays.

DATA EXTRACTION

Four reviewers evaluated the eligibility and quality of literature. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Among the 178 included studies, 129 including 7450 participants were analyzed in this meta-analysis. Six ETPs were significantly effective in enhancing UE motor recovery, with the standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals outlined as follow: constraint-induced movement therapy (0.82, 0.45-1.19), electrostimulation (ES)-motor (0.42, 0.22-0.63), mirror therapy (0.71, 0.22-1.20), mixed approach (0.21, 0.01-0.41), robot-assisted training (0.51, 0.22-0.80), and task-oriented training (0.57, 0.16-0.99). Six ETPs were significantly effective in enhancing LE motor recovery: body-weight-supported treadmill training (0.27, 0.01-0.52), caregiver-mediated training (0.64, 0.20-1.08), ES-motor (0.55, 0.27-0.83), mixed approach (0.35, 0.15-0.54), mirror therapy (0.56, 0.13-1.00), and virtual reality (0.60, 0.15-1.05). However, compared with CTPs, almost none of the ETPs exhibited significant SMDs for superiority.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain experimented interventions were effective in enhancing poststroke motor recovery, but little evidence supported the superiority of experimented interventions over conventional rehabilitation.

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke

BACKGROUND

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training devices are used in rehabilitation, and may help to improve arm function after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength in people after stroke. We also assessed the acceptability and safety of the therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register (last searched January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2018), Embase (1980 to January 2018), CINAHL (1982 to January 2018), AMED (1985 to January 2018), SPORTDiscus (1949 to January 2018), PEDro (searched February 2018), Compendex (1972 to January 2018), and Inspec (1969 to January 2018). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, experts, and researchers in our field, as well as manufacturers of commercial devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for recovery of arm function with other rehabilitation or placebo interventions, or no treatment, for people after stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence, and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 trials (involving 1619 participants) in this update of our review. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training improved activities of daily living scores (SMD 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.52, P = 0.0005; I² = 59%; 24 studies, 957 participants, high-quality evidence), arm function (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.46, P < 0.0001, I² = 36%, 41 studies, 1452 participants, high-quality evidence), and arm muscle strength (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.77, P = 0.003, I² = 76%, 23 studies, 826 participants, high-quality evidence). Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not increase the risk of participant dropout (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, P = 0.93, I² = 0%, 45 studies, 1619 participants, high-quality evidence), and adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who receive electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training after stroke might improve their activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength. However, the results must be interpreted with caution although the quality of the evidence was high, because there were variations between the trials in: the intensity, duration, and amount of training; type of treatment; participant characteristics; and measurements used.

Effectiveness of robot therapy on body function and structure in people with limited upper limb function: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-Assisted Therapy (RT) is an innovative approach to neurological rehabilitation that uses intensive, repetitive, interactive, and individualized practice. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effectiveness of RT on the body function and structure of people with upper limb impairments (PROSPERO registration: CRD42017054982). A search strategy conducted on seven databases identified randomized controlled studies. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. When possible, the data were pooled, the strength of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system, and the effect sizes were assessed using Cohen coefficient. Subgroup analyses investigated the impact on the estimated effects of the following parameters: methodological quality; portion of the assessed upper limb; duration of stroke; and intervention dose and duration. Thirty-eight studies involving 1174 participants were included. Pooled estimates revealed small effects of RT on motor control and medium effects on strength compared with other intervention (OI) at a short-term follow-up. Standardized differences in means were as follows: 0.3 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4) and 0.5 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.8). Effects at other time points and on other investigated outcomes related to body function and structure were not found (p>0.05). The strength of the current evidence was usually low quality. Subgroup analyses suggested that the methodological quality, and duration and dose of RT may influence the estimated effects. In conclusion, RT has small effects on motor control and medium effects on strength in people with limited upper limb function. Poor methodological quality, and lower treatment dose and duration may impact negatively the estimated effects.

Rehabilitation Interventions for Upper Limb Function in the First Four Weeks Following Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Evidence

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the therapeutic interventions reported in the research literature and synthesize their effectiveness in improving upper limb (UL) function in the first 4 weeks poststroke.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and trial registries were searched from inception until June 2016, in addition to searching systematic reviews by hand.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials, and interventional studies with pre/posttest design were included for adults within 4 weeks of any type of stroke with UL impairment. Participants all received an intervention of any physiotherapeutic or occupational therapeutic technique designed to address impairment or activity of the affected UL, which could be compared with usual care, sham, or another technique.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility of full texts, and methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 104 trials (83 RCTs, 21 nonrandomized studies) were included (N=5225 participants). Meta-analyses of RCTs only (20 comparisons) and narrative syntheses were completed. Key findings included significant positive effects for modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) (standardized mean difference [SMD]=1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], .21-1.97) and task-specific training (SMD=.37; 95% CI, .05-.68). Evidence was found to support supplementary use of biofeedback and electrical stimulation. Use of Bobath therapy was not supported.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of mCIMT and task-specific training was supported, as was supplementary use of biofeedback and electrical simulation, within the acute phase poststroke. Further high-quality studies into the initial 4 weeks poststroke are needed to determine therapies for targeted functional UL outcomes.

Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy for the Upper Limb After Stroke

BACKGROUND

Robot technology for poststroke rehabilitation is developing rapidly. A number of new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the effects of robot-assisted therapy for the paretic upper limb (RT-UL).

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effects of poststroke RT-UL on measures of motor control of the paretic arm, muscle strength and tone, upper limb capacity, and basic activities of daily living (ADL) in comparison with nonrobotic treatment.

METHODS

Relevant RCTs were identified in electronic searches. Meta-analyses were performed for measures of motor control (eg, Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the arm; FMA arm), muscle strength and tone, upper limb capacity, and basic ADL. Subgroup analyses were applied for the number of joints involved, robot type, timing poststroke, and treatment contrast.

RESULTS

Forty-four RCTs (N = 1362) were included. No serious adverse events were reported. Meta-analyses of 38 trials (N = 1206) showed significant but small improvements in motor control (~2 points FMA arm) and muscle strength of the paretic arm and a negative effect on muscle tone. No effects were found for upper limb capacity and basic ADL. Shoulder/elbow robotics showed small but significant effects on motor control and muscle strength, while elbow/wrist robotics had small but significant effects on motor control.

CONCLUSIONS

RT-UL allows patients to increase the number of repetitions and hence intensity of practice poststroke, and appears to be a safe therapy. Effects on motor control are small and specific to the joints targeted by RT-UL, whereas no generalization is found to improvements in upper limb capacity. The impact of RT-UL started in the first weeks poststroke remains unclear. These limited findings could mainly be related to poor understanding of robot-induced motor learning as well as inadequate designing of RT-UL trials, by not applying an appropriate selection of stroke patients with a potential to recovery at baseline as well as the lack of fixed timing of baseline assessments and using an insufficient treatment contrast early poststroke.

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke

BACKGROUND

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training devices are used in rehabilitation, and may help to improve arm function after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength in people after stroke. We also assessed the acceptability and safety of the therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register (last searched February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015), AMED (1985 to March 2015), SPORTDiscus (1949 to March 2015), PEDro (searched April 2015), Compendex (1972 to March 2015), and Inspec (1969 to March 2015). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, experts, and researchers in our field, as well as manufacturers of commercial devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for recovery of arm function with other rehabilitation or placebo interventions, or no treatment, for people after stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 trials (involving 1160 participants) in this update of our review. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training improved activities of daily living scores (SMD 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.64, P = 0.005, I² = 62%), arm function (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.51, P < 0.0001, I² = 36%), and arm muscle strength (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.70, P = 0.04, I² = 72%), but the quality of the evidence was low to very low. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not increase the risk of participant drop-out (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03, P = 0.84, I² = 0%) with moderate-quality evidence, and adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who receive electromechanical and robot-assisted arm and hand training after stroke might improve their activities of daily living, arm and hand function, and arm and hand muscle strength. However, the results must be interpreted with caution because the quality of the evidence was low to very low, and there were variations between the trials in the intensity, duration, and amount of training; type of treatment; and participant characteristics.

Design and Kinematic Evaluation of a Novel Joint-Specific Play Controller: Application for Wrist and Forearm Therapy

BACKGROUND

The wrist extensors and flexors are profoundly affected in most children with hemiparetic cerebral palsy (CP) and are the major target of physical therapists' and occupational therapists' efforts to restore useful hand functions. A limitation of any therapeutic or exercise program can be the level of the child's engagement or adherence. The proposed approach capitalizes on the primary learning avenue for children: toy play.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop and evaluate the measurement accuracy of innovative, motion-specific play controllers that are engaging rehabilitative devices for enhancing therapy and promoting neural plasticity and functional recovery in children with CP.

DESIGN

Design objectives of the play controller included a cost-effective, home-based supplement to physical therapy, the ability to calibrate the controller so that play can be accomplished with any active range of motion, and the capability of logging play activity and wrist motion over week-long periods.

METHODS

Accuracy of the play controller in measuring wrist flexion-extension was evaluated in 6 children who were developing in a typical manner, using optical motion capture of the wrist and forearm as the gold standard.

RESULTS

The error of the play controller was estimated at approximately 5 degrees in both maximum wrist flexion and extension.

LIMITATIONS

Measurements were taken during a laboratory session, with children without CP, and no toy or computer game was interfaced with the play controller. Therefore, the potential engagement of the proposed approach for therapy remains to be evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presented the concept, development, and wrist tracking accuracy of an inexpensive approach to extremity therapy that may have a health benefit for children with hemiparesis, and potentially for patients of any age with a wide range of extremity neuromotor impairments.

Robotic Technology and Stroke Rehabilitation: Translating Research into Practice

Research on the effectiveness of robotic therapy for the paretic upper limb after stroke has shown statistically significant reductions in motor impairment during both acute and chronic phases of recovery. Despite growing empirical support for this technology and a stronger focus on optimizing rehabilitation outcomes and productivity, there continues to be a disconnect between research and clinical practice. We review studies on the use of robot-aided neurorehabilitation for the paretic arm after stroke and discuss ways in which this technology may provide opportunities for intensive training that complement more conventional therapy methods.

Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: a framework for classification based on a systematic review

Robot-mediated post-stroke therapy for the upper-extremity dates back to the 1990s. Since then, a number of robotic devices have become commercially available. There is clear evidence that robotic interventions improve upper limb motor scores and strength, but these improvements are often not transferred to performance of activities of daily living. We wish to better understand why. Our systematic review of 74 papers focuses on the targeted stage of recovery, the part of the limb trained, the different modalities used, and the effectiveness of each. The review shows that most of the studies so far focus on training of the proximal arm for chronic stroke patients. About the training modalities, studies typically refer to active, active-assisted and passive interaction. Robot-therapy in active assisted mode was associated with consistent improvements in arm function. More specifically, the use of HRI features stressing active contribution by the patient, such as EMG-modulated forces or a pushing force in combination with spring-damper guidance, may be beneficial.Our work also highlights that current literature frequently lacks information regarding the mechanism about the physical human-robot interaction (HRI). It is often unclear how the different modalities are implemented by different research groups (using different robots and platforms). In order to have a better and more reliable evidence of usefulness for these technologies, it is recommended that the HRI is better described and documented so that work of various teams can be considered in the same group and categories, allowing to infer for more suitable approaches. We propose a framework for categorisation of HRI modalities and features that will allow comparing their therapeutic benefits.

Robot-assisted Therapy in Stroke Rehabilitation

Research into rehabilitation robotics has grown rapidly and the number of therapeutic rehabilitation robots has expanded dramatically during the last two decades. Robotic rehabilitation therapy can deliver high-dosage and high-intensity training, making it useful for patients with motor disorders caused by stroke or spinal cord disease. Robotic devices used for motor rehabilitation include end-effector and exoskeleton types; herein, we review the clinical use of both types. One application of robot-assisted therapy is improvement of gait function in patients with stroke. Both end-effector and the exoskeleton devices have proven to be effective complements to conventional physiotherapy in patients with subacute stroke, but there is no clear evidence that robotic gait training is superior to conventional physiotherapy in patients with chronic stroke or when delivered alone. In another application, upper limb motor function training in patients recovering from stroke, robot-assisted therapy was comparable or superior to conventional therapy in patients with subacute stroke. With end-effector devices, the intensity of therapy was the most important determinant of upper limb motor recovery. However, there is insufficient evidence for the use of exoskeleton devices for upper limb motor function in patients with stroke. For rehabilitation of hand motor function, either end-effector and exoskeleton devices showed similar or additive effects relative to conventional therapy in patients with chronic stroke. The present evidence supports the use of robot-assisted therapy for improving motor function in stroke patients as an additional therapeutic intervention in combination with the conventional rehabilitation therapies. Nevertheless, there will be substantial opportunities for technical development in near future.

Effect of therapist-based versus robot-assisted bilateral arm training on motor control, functional performance, and quality of life after chronic stroke: a clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Although bilateral arm training (BAT) has been widely studied, the comparative effects of therapist-based BAT (TBAT) versus robot-assisted BAT (RBAT) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy of TBAT, RBAT, and a control treatment (CT) on motor control, functional performance, and quality of life after chronic stroke.

DESIGN

A randomized, pretest-posttest, control group design was used.

METHODS

Forty-two patients (mean age=54.49 years, SD=9.69; mean length of time since stroke onset=17.62 months, SD=10.50) were randomly assigned to TBAT, RBAT, and CT groups. Each group received treatment for 90 to 105 minutes per session, 5 sessions on weekdays, for 4 weeks. Outcome measures included kinematic analyses, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), the Motor Activity Log, and the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS).

RESULTS

Large and significant effects were found in the kinematic variables, distal part of upper-limb motor impairment, and certain aspects of quality of life in favor of TBAT or RBAT. Specifically, the TBAT group demonstrated significantly better temporal efficiency and smoothness, straighter trunk motion, and less trunk compensation compared with the CT and RBAT groups. The RBAT group had increased shoulder flexion compared with the CT and TBAT groups. On the FMA, the TBAT group showed higher distal part scores than the CT group. On the SIS, the RBAT group had better strength subscale, physical function domain, and total scores than the CT group. Limitations This study recruited patients with mild spasticity and without cognitive impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CT, TBAT and RBAT exhibited differential effects on outcome measures. Therapist-based BAT may improve temporal efficiency, smoothness, trunk control, and motor impairment of the distal upper limb. Robot-assisted BAT may improve shoulder flexion and quality of life.

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving generic activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke

BACKGROUND

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training devices are used in rehabilitation, and might help to improve arm function after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving generic activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength in patients after stroke. We will also assess the acceptability and safety of the therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register (last searched July 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1950 to July 2011), EMBASE (1980 to July 2011), CINAHL (1982 to July 2011), AMED (1985 to July 2011), SPORTDiscus (1949 to July 2011), PEDro (searched August 2011), COMPENDEX (1972 to July 2011), and INSPEC (1969 to July 2011). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, experts and researchers in our field, as well as manufacturers of commercial devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for recovery of arm function with other rehabilitation or placebo interventions, or no treatment, for patients after stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials (involving 666 participants) in this update of our review. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did improve activities of daily living (SMD 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.75, P = 0.009, I(2) = 67%) as well as arm function (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.69, P = 0.0004, I(2) = 45%), but arm muscle strength did not improve (SMD 0.48, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.03, P = 0.08, I(2) = 79%). Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not increase the risk of patients to drop out (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.04, P = 0.82, I(2) = 0.0%), and adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patients who receive electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training after stroke are more likely to improve their generic activities of daily living. Paretic arm function may also improve, but not arm muscle strength. However, the results must be interpreted with caution because there were variations between the trials in the duration and amount of training, type of treatment, and in the patient characteristics.

Virtual reality and robotics for stroke rehabilitation: where do we go from here?

Promoting functional recovery after stroke requires collaborative and innovative approaches to neurorehabilitation research. Task-oriented training (TOT) approaches that include challenging, adaptable, and meaningful activities have led to successful outcomes in several large-scale multisite definitive trials. This, along with recent technological advances of virtual reality and robotics, provides a fertile environment for furthering clinical research in neurorehabilitation. Both virtual reality and robotics make use of multimodal sensory interfaces to affect human behavior. In the therapeutic setting, these systems can be used to quantitatively monitor, manipulate, and augment the users' interaction with their environment, with the goal of promoting functional recovery. This article describes recent advances in virtual reality and robotics and the synergy with best clinical practice. Additionally, we describe the promise shown for automated assessments and in-home activity-based interventions. Finally, we propose a broader approach to ensuring that technology-based assessment and intervention complement evidence-based practice and maintain a patient-centered perspective.

Interventions to promote upper limb recovery in stroke survivors with severe paresis: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of interventions that promote upper limb (UL) recovery in stroke survivors with severe paresis.

METHODS

A systematic search of the scientific literature from January 1970 to March 2009 was conducted using CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro, Pubmed and Web of Science. keywords used included stroke, severe, hemiplegia, UL, task-oriented, robot, non-robot and electrical stimulation. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the PEDro rating scale. Studies were grouped into one of three intervention categories: robotic therapy, electrical stimulation or 'other' therapy.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A 'best evidence synthesis' indicated strong evidence that robotic therapy provides a large beneficial effect and limited evidence that electrical stimulation and 'other' interventions provide a large beneficial effect on function. There is no evidence that these interventions influence use of the arm in everyday tasks.

CONCLUSION

There are a number of newly developed interventions that enable stroke survivors with severe paresis to actively participate in task-oriented practice to promote UL recovery. While these interventions offer some promise for stroke survivors with severe paresis, ultimately, the effectiveness of these interventions will be dependent on whether they lead to restoration of function to the point at which the stroke survivor can practice everyday tasks.

The effect of repeated measurements using an upper extremity robot on healthy adults

We are expanding the use of the MIT-MANUS robotics to persons with impairments due exclusively to orthopedic disorders, with no neurological deficits. To understand the reliability of repeated measurements of the robotic tasks and the potential for registering changes due to learning is critical. Purposes of this study were to assess the learning effect of repeated exposure to robotic evaluations and to demonstrate the ability to detect a change in protocol in outcome measurements. Ten healthy, unimpaired subjects (mean age = 54.1 +/- 6.4 years) performed six repeated evaluations consisting of unconstrained reaching movements to targets and circle drawing (with and without a visual template) on the MITMANUS. Reaching outcomes were aiming error, mean and peak speed, movement smoothness and duration. Outcomes for circle drawing were axis ratio metric and shoulder- elbow joint angles correlation metric (was based on a two-link model of the human arm and calculated hand path during the motions). Repeated-measures ANOVA (p < or = .05) determined if difference existed between the sessions. Intraclass correlations (R) were calculated. All variables were reliable, without learning across testing sessions. Intraclass correlation values were good to high (reaching, R > or =.80; circle drawing, R > or =.90). Robotic measurement ability to differentiate between similar but distinct tasks was demonstrated as measured by axis ratio metric (p < .001) and joint correlation metric (p = .001). Outcome measures of the MIT-MANUS proved to be reliable yet sensitive to change in healthy adults without motor learning over the course of repeated measurements.

Multicenter randomized trial of robot-assisted rehabilitation for chronic stroke: methods and entry characteristics for VA ROBOTICS

BACKGROUND

Chronic upper extremity impairment due to stroke has significant medical, psychosocial, and financial consequences, but few studies have examined the effectiveness of rehabilitation therapy during the chronic stroke period.

OBJECTIVE

. To test the safety and efficacy of the MIT-Manus robotic device for chronic upper extremity impairment following stroke.

METHODS

. The VA Cooperative Studies Program initiated a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in November 2006 (VA ROBOTICS). Participants with upper extremity impairment >/=6 months poststroke were randomized to robot-assisted therapy (RT), intensive comparison therapy (ICT), or usual care (UC). RT and ICT consisted of three 1-hour treatment sessions per week for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment upper extremity motor function score at 12 weeks relative to baseline. Secondary outcomes included the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale.

RESULTS

. A total of 127 participants were randomized: 49 to RT, 50 to ICT, and 28 to UC. The majority of participants were male (96%), with a mean age of 65 years. The primary stroke type was ischemic (85%), and 58% of strokes occurred in the anterior circulation. Twenty percent of the participants reported a stroke in addition to their index stroke. The average time from the index stroke to enrollment was 56 months (range, 6 months to 24 years). The mean Fugl-Meyer score at entry was 18.9.

CONCLUSIONS

. VA ROBOTICS demonstrates the feasibility of conducting multicenter clinical trials to rigorously test new rehabilitative devices before their introduction to clinical practice. The results are expected in early 2010.

A pilot study of activity-based therapy in the arm motor recovery post stroke: a randomized controlled trial

Objective: To determine the efficacy of activity-based therapies using arm ergometer or robotic or group occupational therapy for motor recovery of the paretic arm in patients with an acute stroke (≤4 weeks) admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation facility, and to obtain information to plan a large randomized controlled trial.

Design: Prospective, randomized controlled study.

Setting: Stroke unit in a rehabilitation hospital.

Subjects: Thirty patients with an acute stroke (≤4 weeks) who had arm weakness (Medical Research Council grade 2 or less at the shoulder joint).

Intervention: Occupational therapy (OT) group (control) (n = 10), arm ergometer (n = 10) or robotic (n = 10) therapy group. All patients received standard, inpatient, post-stroke rehabilitation training for 3 hours a day, plus 12 additional 40-minute sessions of the activity-based therapy.

Main measures: The primary outcome measures were discharge scores in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale for upper limb impairment, Motor Status Scale, total Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and FIM-motor and FIM-cognition subscores.

Results: The three groups (OT group versus arm ergometer versus robotic) were comparable on clinical demographic measures except the robotic group was significantly older and there were more haemorrhagic stroke patients in the arm ergometer group. After adjusting for age, stroke type and outcome measures at baseline, a similar degree of improvement in the discharge scores was found in all of the primary outcome measures.

Conclusion: This study suggests that activity-based therapies using an arm ergometer or robot when used over shortened training periods have the same effect as OT group therapy in decreasing impairment and improving disability in the paretic arm of severely affected stroke patients in the subacute phase.

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving arm function and activities of daily living after stroke

BACKGROUND

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training devices are used in rehabilitation and might help to improve arm function after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living and arm function and motor strength of patients after stroke, and the acceptability and safety of the therapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched October 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2007), MEDLINE (1950 to October 2007), EMBASE (1980 to October 2007), CINAHL (1982 to October 2007), AMED (1985 to October 2007), SPORTDiscus (1949 to October 2007), PEDro (searched October 2007), COMPENDEX (1972 to October 2007) and INSPEC (1969 to October 2007). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, experts and researchers in our field, and manufacturers of commercial devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for recovery of arm function with other rehabilitation interventions or no treatment for patients after stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables and relative risk differences (RD) for dichotomous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials (328 participants) in this review. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not improve activities of daily living (SMD = 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to 1.06; P = 0.45; I(2 )= 85%). Arm motor function and arm motor strength improved (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.11; P = 0.002; I(2 )= 56% and SMD = 01.03, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.78; P = 0.007; I(2 )= 79% respectively). Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not increase the risk of patients to drop out (RD) (fixed-effect model) = 0.01; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.06; P = 0.77; I(2 )= 0.0%) and adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patients who receive electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training after stroke are not more likely to improve their activities of daily living, but arm motor function and strength of the paretic arm may improve. However, the results must be interpreted with caution because there were variations between the trials in the duration, amount of training and type of treatment, and in the patient characteristics.

The King's Outcome Scale for Childhood Head Injury and injury severity and outcome measures in children with traumatic brain injury

The aim of this study was to relate discharge King's Outcome Scale for Childhood Head Injury (KOSCHI) category to injury severity and detailed outcome measures obtained in the first year post-traumatic brain injury (TBI). We used a prospective cohort study. Eighty-one children with TBI were studied: 29 had severe, 15 moderate, and 37 mild TBI. The male:female ratio was 1.8:1. The mean age was 11 years 10 months (SD 3.6, range 5-16y). Discharge KOSCHI categories were good (n=34), moderate (n=39), severe (n=6), and unclassifiable (n=2). KOSCHI category correlated strongly with admission Glasgow Coma Score, length of hospital stay, and post-traumatic amnesia. It also correlated significantly with Verbal IQ and Performance IQ (Wechsler); measures of attention; health status (Health Utilities Index [HUI]); health-related quality of life (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory [PedsQL]); depressive symptoms (Birleson Depression Scale) assessed within 3 months postTBI; and with Verbal IQ, selective attention (map mission), and HUI and PedsQL domains assessed at least 6 months post-TBI discharge. KOSCHI did not correlate with behaviour or executive function. We conclude that the KOSCHI scored at hospital discharge correlates with severity of injury and some cognitive, health status, and HRQL outcomes early after TBI. It is not helpful at predicting later difficulties, or behavioural and emotional problems.

Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: a robot for wrist rehabilitation

In 1991, a novel robot, MIT-MANUS, was introduced to study the potential that robots might assist in and quantify the neuro-rehabilitation of motor function. MIT-MANUS proved an excellent tool for shoulder and elbow rehabilitation in stroke patients, showing in clinical trials a reduction of impairment in movements confined to the exercised joints. This successful proof of principle as to additional targeted and intensive movement treatment prompted a test of robot training examining other limb segments. This paper focuses on a robot for wrist rehabilitation designed to provide three rotational degrees-of-freedom. The first clinical trial of the device will enroll 200 stroke survivors. Ultimately 160 stroke survivors will train with both the proximal shoulder and elbow MIT-MANUS robot, as well as with the novel distal wrist robot, in addition to 40 stroke survivor controls. So far 52 stroke patients have completed the robot training (ongoing protocol). Here, we report on the initial results on 36 of these volunteers. These results demonstrate that further improvement should be expected by adding additional training to other limb segments.

Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to present a systematic review of studies that investigate the effects of robot-assisted therapy on motor and functional recovery in patients with stroke.

METHODS

A database of articles published up to October 2006 was compiled using the following Medline key words: cerebral vascular accident, cerebral vascular disorders, stroke, paresis, hemiplegia, upper extremity, arm, and robot. References listed in relevant publications were also screened. Studies that satisfied the following selection criteria were included: (1) patients were diagnosed with cerebral vascular accident; (2) effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb were investigated; (3) the outcome was measured in terms of motor and/or functional recovery of the upper paretic limb; and (4) the study was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). For each outcome measure, the estimated effect size (ES) and the summary effect size (SES) expressed in standard deviation units (SDU) were calculated for motor recovery and functional ability (activities of daily living [ADLs]) using fixed and random effect models. Ten studies, involving 218 patients, were included in the synthesis. Their methodological quality ranged from 4 to 8 on a (maximum) 10-point scale.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis showed a nonsignificant heterogeneous SES in terms of upper limb motor recovery. Sensitivity analysis of studies involving only shoulder-elbow robotics subsequently demonstrated a significant homogeneous SES for motor recovery of the upper paretic limb. No significant SES was observed for functional ability (ADL).

CONCLUSION

As a result of marked heterogeneity in studies between distal and proximal arm robotics, no overall significant effect in favor of robot-assisted therapy was found in the present meta-analysis. However, subsequent sensitivity analysis showed a significant improvement in upper limb motor function after stroke for upper arm robotics. No significant improvement was found in ADL function. However, the administered ADL scales in the reviewed studies fail to adequately reflect recovery of the paretic upper limb, whereas valid instruments that measure outcome of dexterity of the paretic arm and hand are mostly absent in selected studies. Future research into the effects of robot-assisted therapy should therefore distinguish between upper and lower robotics arm training and concentrate on kinematical analysis to differentiate between genuine upper limb motor recovery and functional recovery due to compensation strategies by proximal control of the trunk and upper limb.

Therapeutic Robotics: A Technology Push: Stroke rehabilitation is being aided by robots that guide movement of shoulders and elbows, wrists, hands, arms and ankles to significantly improve recovery of patients

In this paper, we present a retrospective and chronological review of our efforts to revolutionize the way physical medicine is practiced by developing and deploying therapeutic robots. We present a sample of our clinical results with well over 300 stroke patients, both inpatients and outpatients, proving that movement therapy has a measurable and significant impact on recovery following brain injury. Bolstered by this result, we embarked on a two-pronged approach: 1) to determine what constitutes best therapy practice and 2) to develop additional therapeutic robots. We review our robots developed over the past 15 years and their unique characteristics. All are configured both to deliver reproducible therapy but also to measure outcomes with minimal encumbrance, thus providing critical measurement tools to help unravel the key question posed under the first prong: what constitutes "best practice"? We believe that a "gym" of robots like these will become a central feature of physical medicine and the rehabilitation clinic within the next ten years.

Robot-aided intensive training in post-stroke recovery

The successful motor rehabilitation of stroke patients requires an intensive and task-specific therapy approach. The plasticity of the adult human brain provides opportunities to enhance traditional rehabilitation programs for these individuals. Intensive robot-aided sensorimotor training may have a positive effect on reducing impairment and disability and increasing reorganization of the adult brain. This approach may therefore efficaciously complement standard post-stroke multidisciplinary programs as shown by recent experimental trials.

Evaluation of robotic training forces that either enhance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors

This investigation is one in a series of studies that address the possibility of stroke rehabilitation using robotic devices to facilitate "adaptive training." Healthy subjects, after training in the presence of systematically applied forces, typically exhibit a predictable "after-effect." A critical question is whether this adaptive characteristic is preserved following stroke so that it might be exploited for restoring function. Another important question is whether subjects benefit more from training forces that enhance their errors than from forces that reduce their errors. We exposed hemiparetic stroke survivors and healthy age-matched controls to a pattern of disturbing forces that have been found by previous studies to induce a dramatic adaptation in healthy individuals. Eighteen stroke survivors made 834 movements in the presence of a robot-generated force field that pushed their hands proportional to its speed and perpendicular to its direction of motion--either clockwise or counterclockwise. We found that subjects could adapt, as evidenced by significant after-effects. After-effects were not correlated with the clinical scores that we used for measuring motor impairment. Further examination revealed that significant improvements occurred only when the training forces magnified the original errors, and not when the training forces reduced the errors or were zero. Within this constrained experimental task we found that error-enhancing therapy (as opposed to guiding the limb closer to the correct path) to be more effective than therapy that assisted the subject.