{"title":"主动辅助和主动非辅助机器人介导的上肢治疗在亚急性卒中中的比较。","authors":"Ophélie Pila, Typhaine Koeppel, Anne-Gaëlle Grosmaire, Christophe Duret","doi":"10.3233/RNN-201010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Upper-limb robot-mediated therapy is usually carried out in active-assisted mode because it enables performance of many movements. However, assistance may reduce the patient's own efforts which could limit motor recovery.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the effects of active-assisted and active-unassisted robotic interactions on motor recovery in subacute stroke patients with moderate hemiparesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fourteen patients underwent a 6-week combined upper limb program of usual therapy and robotic therapy using either the active-unassisted (n = 8) or active-assisted (n = 6) modes. In the active-assisted group, assistance was only provided for the first 3 weeks (1st period) and was then switched off for the remaining 3 weeks (2nd period). The Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) was carried out pre- and post-treatment. The mean number of movements performed and the mean working distance during the 1st and 2nd periods were compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FMA score improved post-treatment in both groups with no between-group differences: active-assisted group: +8±6 pts vs active-unassisted group: +10±6 pts (ns). Between the 1st and 2nd periods, there was a statistical trend towards an improvement in the number of movements performed (p = 0.06) in the active-unassisted group (526±253 to 783±434, p = 0.06) but not in the active-assisted group (882±211 to 880±297, ns). Another trend of improvement was found for the working distance in the active-unassisted group (8.7±4.5 to 9.9±4.7, p = 0.09) but not in the active-assisted group (14.0±0 to 13.5±1.1, ns).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The superiority of the non-assistive over assistive robotic modes has not been demonstrated. However, the non-assistive mode did not appear to reduce motor recovery in this population, despite the performance of fewer movements on shorter working distance compared with the group who had assistance. It seems that the requirement of effort could be a determinant factor for recovery in neurorehabilitation however further well-design studies are needed to fully understand this phenomenon.</p>","PeriodicalId":21130,"journal":{"name":"Restorative neurology and neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3233/RNN-201010","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of active-assisted and active-unassisted robot-mediated upper limb therapy in subacute stroke.\",\"authors\":\"Ophélie Pila, Typhaine Koeppel, Anne-Gaëlle Grosmaire, Christophe Duret\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/RNN-201010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Upper-limb robot-mediated therapy is usually carried out in active-assisted mode because it enables performance of many movements. However, assistance may reduce the patient's own efforts which could limit motor recovery.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the effects of active-assisted and active-unassisted robotic interactions on motor recovery in subacute stroke patients with moderate hemiparesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fourteen patients underwent a 6-week combined upper limb program of usual therapy and robotic therapy using either the active-unassisted (n = 8) or active-assisted (n = 6) modes. In the active-assisted group, assistance was only provided for the first 3 weeks (1st period) and was then switched off for the remaining 3 weeks (2nd period). The Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) was carried out pre- and post-treatment. The mean number of movements performed and the mean working distance during the 1st and 2nd periods were compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FMA score improved post-treatment in both groups with no between-group differences: active-assisted group: +8±6 pts vs active-unassisted group: +10±6 pts (ns). Between the 1st and 2nd periods, there was a statistical trend towards an improvement in the number of movements performed (p = 0.06) in the active-unassisted group (526±253 to 783±434, p = 0.06) but not in the active-assisted group (882±211 to 880±297, ns). Another trend of improvement was found for the working distance in the active-unassisted group (8.7±4.5 to 9.9±4.7, p = 0.09) but not in the active-assisted group (14.0±0 to 13.5±1.1, ns).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The superiority of the non-assistive over assistive robotic modes has not been demonstrated. However, the non-assistive mode did not appear to reduce motor recovery in this population, despite the performance of fewer movements on shorter working distance compared with the group who had assistance. It seems that the requirement of effort could be a determinant factor for recovery in neurorehabilitation however further well-design studies are needed to fully understand this phenomenon.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21130,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Restorative neurology and neuroscience\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3233/RNN-201010\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Restorative neurology and neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-201010\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restorative neurology and neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-201010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of active-assisted and active-unassisted robot-mediated upper limb therapy in subacute stroke.
Background: Upper-limb robot-mediated therapy is usually carried out in active-assisted mode because it enables performance of many movements. However, assistance may reduce the patient's own efforts which could limit motor recovery.
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of active-assisted and active-unassisted robotic interactions on motor recovery in subacute stroke patients with moderate hemiparesis.
Methods: Fourteen patients underwent a 6-week combined upper limb program of usual therapy and robotic therapy using either the active-unassisted (n = 8) or active-assisted (n = 6) modes. In the active-assisted group, assistance was only provided for the first 3 weeks (1st period) and was then switched off for the remaining 3 weeks (2nd period). The Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) was carried out pre- and post-treatment. The mean number of movements performed and the mean working distance during the 1st and 2nd periods were compared between groups.
Results: FMA score improved post-treatment in both groups with no between-group differences: active-assisted group: +8±6 pts vs active-unassisted group: +10±6 pts (ns). Between the 1st and 2nd periods, there was a statistical trend towards an improvement in the number of movements performed (p = 0.06) in the active-unassisted group (526±253 to 783±434, p = 0.06) but not in the active-assisted group (882±211 to 880±297, ns). Another trend of improvement was found for the working distance in the active-unassisted group (8.7±4.5 to 9.9±4.7, p = 0.09) but not in the active-assisted group (14.0±0 to 13.5±1.1, ns).
Conclusions: The superiority of the non-assistive over assistive robotic modes has not been demonstrated. However, the non-assistive mode did not appear to reduce motor recovery in this population, despite the performance of fewer movements on shorter working distance compared with the group who had assistance. It seems that the requirement of effort could be a determinant factor for recovery in neurorehabilitation however further well-design studies are needed to fully understand this phenomenon.
期刊介绍：
This interdisciplinary journal publishes papers relating to the plasticity and response of the nervous system to accidental or experimental injuries and their interventions, transplantation, neurodegenerative disorders and experimental strategies to improve regeneration or functional recovery and rehabilitation. Experimental and clinical research papers adopting fresh conceptual approaches are encouraged. The overriding criteria for publication are novelty, significant experimental or clinical relevance and interest to a multidisciplinary audience. Experiments on un-anesthetized animals should conform with the standards for the use of laboratory animals as established by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, US National Academy of Sciences. Experiments in which paralytic agents are used must be justified. Patient identity should be concealed. All manuscripts are sent out for blind peer review to editorial board members or outside reviewers. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience is a member of Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
