The Role of Robotic Path Assistance and Weight Support in Facilitating 3D Movements in Individuals With Poststroke Hemiparesis

Developing a Framework for Designing and Deploying Technology-Assisted Rehabilitation After Stroke: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

Many unmet rehabilitation needs of patients with stroke can be addressed effectively using technology. However, technological solutions have not yet been seamlessly incorporated into clinical care. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine how to bridge the gaps between the recovery process, technology, and clinical practice to impact stroke rehabilitation meaningfully.

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews were performed using a grounded theory approach with purposive sampling of 17 diverse expert providers in acute care, inpatient, and outpatient stroke rehabilitation settings. Common themes were identified from qualitative analyses of the transcribed conversations to develop a guiding framework from the emerging concepts.

RESULTS

Four core themes emerged that addressed major barriers in stroke rehabilitation and technology-assisted solutions to overcome these barriers: (1) accessibility to quality rehabilitation, (2) adaptability to patient differences, (3) accountability or compliance with rehabilitation, and (4) engagement with rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest a four-pronged framework, the A3E framework that stands for Accessibility, Adaptability, Accountability, and Engagement, to comprehensively address existing barriers in providing rehabilitation services. This framework can guide technology developers and clinicians in designing and deploying technology-assisted rehabilitation solutions for poststroke rehabilitation, particularly using telerehabilitation.

A comparison of the effects and usability of two exoskeletal robots with and without robotic actuation for upper extremity rehabilitation among patients with stroke: a single-blinded randomised controlled pilot study

Background

Robotic rehabilitation of stroke survivors with upper extremity dysfunction may yield different outcomes depending on the robot type. Considering that excessive dependence on assistive force by robotic actuators may interfere with the patient’s active learning and participation, we hypothesised that the use of an active-assistive robot with robotic actuators does not lead to a more meaningful difference with respect to upper extremity rehabilitation than the use of a passive robot without robotic actuators. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the differences in the clinical and kinematic outcomes between active-assistive and passive robotic rehabilitation among stroke survivors.

Methods

In this single-blinded randomised controlled pilot trial, we assigned 20 stroke survivors with upper extremity dysfunction (Medical Research Council scale score, 3 or 4) to the active-assistive robotic intervention (ACT) and passive robotic intervention (PSV) groups in a 1:1 ratio and administered 20 sessions of 30-min robotic intervention (5 days/week, 4 weeks). The primary (Wolf Motor Function Test [WMFT]-score and -time: measures activity), and secondary (Fugl-Meyer Assessment [FMA] and Stroke Impact Scale [SIS] scores: measure impairment and participation, respectively; kinematic outcomes) outcome measures were determined at baseline, after 2 and 4 weeks of the intervention, and 4 weeks after the end of the intervention. Furthermore, we evaluated the usability of the robots through interviews with patients, therapists, and physiatrists.

Results

In both the groups, the WMFT-score and -time improved over the course of the intervention. Time had a significant effect on the WMFT-score and -time, FMA-UE, FMA-prox, and SIS-strength; group × time interaction had a significant effect on SIS-function and SIS-social participation (all, p < 0.05). The PSV group showed better improvement in participation and smoothness than the ACT group. In contrast, the ACT group exhibited better improvement in mean speed.

Conclusions

There were no differences between the two groups regarding the impairment and activity domains. However, the PSV robots were more beneficial than ACT robots regarding participation and smoothness. Considering the high cost and complexity of ACT robots, PSV robots might be more suitable for rehabilitation in stroke survivors capable of voluntary movement.

Trial registration The trial was registered retrospectively on 14 March 2018 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03465267).