Mariana Vita Milazzotto Neves MSc , Leonardo Furlan PhD , Felipe Fregni MD, PhD , Linamara Rizzo Battistella MD, PhD , Marcel Simis MD, PhD
{"title":"机器人辅助步态训练(RAGT)在中风康复中的应用:一项试点研究","authors":"Mariana Vita Milazzotto Neves MSc , Leonardo Furlan PhD , Felipe Fregni MD, PhD , Linamara Rizzo Battistella MD, PhD , Marcel Simis MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.arrct.2023.100255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the effects of 2 types of robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) devices that have been used in stroke rehabilitation.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Retrospective cohort.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Rehabilitation hospital.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>24 community dwelling people with stroke (N=24).</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>RAGT with either an <em>exoskeleton</em> (<em>Lokomat</em>) (mean age=53.8 years; 30% men; mean duration of stroke =17.8 months) or an <em>end-effector</em> (<em>G-EO</em>) (mean age=50.5 years; 77.8% men; mean duration of stroke =13.11) delivered 3 times per week (36 sessions total).</p></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><p>The following tests/scales were employed before and after RAGT: Functional Ambulation Categories (FACs), timed Up and Go (TUG), 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Trunk Impairment Scale, Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and ability to climb stairs (time to climb 6 steps of 15 cm each; ability to climb stairs).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 5 dropouts, all from the <em>G-EO</em> group. At the end, 10 participants in the <em>Lokomat</em> and 9 in the <em>G-EO</em> group completed the intervention. From pre- to post-RAGT, <em>G-EO</em> patients improved on all functional tests/scales, whereas <em>Lokomat</em> patients improved only on the TUG, DGI, and BBS. Most patients showed improvements above the relative smallest real difference in the TUG, 10MWT, and 6MWT.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Both <em>end-effectors</em> and <em>exoskeletons</em> may improve clinically relevant aspects of walking function. However, this study had a small sample, was retrospective, non-randomized, and had a significant number of drop-outs, therefore its findings should be interpreted carefully. Future studies are needed for investigating potential differences in clinical results, side effects, contraindications, and cost effectiveness between these 2 different types of RAGT.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72291,"journal":{"name":"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation","volume":"5 1","pages":"Article 100255"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7d/ca/main.PMC10036220.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robotic-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Pilot Study\",\"authors\":\"Mariana Vita Milazzotto Neves MSc , Leonardo Furlan PhD , Felipe Fregni MD, PhD , Linamara Rizzo Battistella MD, PhD , Marcel Simis MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arrct.2023.100255\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the effects of 2 types of robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) devices that have been used in stroke rehabilitation.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Retrospective cohort.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Rehabilitation hospital.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>24 community dwelling people with stroke (N=24).</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>RAGT with either an <em>exoskeleton</em> (<em>Lokomat</em>) (mean age=53.8 years; 30% men; mean duration of stroke =17.8 months) or an <em>end-effector</em> (<em>G-EO</em>) (mean age=50.5 years; 77.8% men; mean duration of stroke =13.11) delivered 3 times per week (36 sessions total).</p></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><p>The following tests/scales were employed before and after RAGT: Functional Ambulation Categories (FACs), timed Up and Go (TUG), 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Trunk Impairment Scale, Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and ability to climb stairs (time to climb 6 steps of 15 cm each; ability to climb stairs).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 5 dropouts, all from the <em>G-EO</em> group. At the end, 10 participants in the <em>Lokomat</em> and 9 in the <em>G-EO</em> group completed the intervention. From pre- to post-RAGT, <em>G-EO</em> patients improved on all functional tests/scales, whereas <em>Lokomat</em> patients improved only on the TUG, DGI, and BBS. Most patients showed improvements above the relative smallest real difference in the TUG, 10MWT, and 6MWT.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Both <em>end-effectors</em> and <em>exoskeletons</em> may improve clinically relevant aspects of walking function. However, this study had a small sample, was retrospective, non-randomized, and had a significant number of drop-outs, therefore its findings should be interpreted carefully. Future studies are needed for investigating potential differences in clinical results, side effects, contraindications, and cost effectiveness between these 2 different types of RAGT.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 100255\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7d/ca/main.PMC10036220.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590109523000022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590109523000022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Robotic-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Pilot Study
Objective
To compare the effects of 2 types of robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) devices that have been used in stroke rehabilitation.
Design
Retrospective cohort.
Setting
Rehabilitation hospital.
Participants
24 community dwelling people with stroke (N=24).
Interventions
RAGT with either an exoskeleton (Lokomat) (mean age=53.8 years; 30% men; mean duration of stroke =17.8 months) or an end-effector (G-EO) (mean age=50.5 years; 77.8% men; mean duration of stroke =13.11) delivered 3 times per week (36 sessions total).
Main Outcome Measures
The following tests/scales were employed before and after RAGT: Functional Ambulation Categories (FACs), timed Up and Go (TUG), 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Trunk Impairment Scale, Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and ability to climb stairs (time to climb 6 steps of 15 cm each; ability to climb stairs).
Results
There were 5 dropouts, all from the G-EO group. At the end, 10 participants in the Lokomat and 9 in the G-EO group completed the intervention. From pre- to post-RAGT, G-EO patients improved on all functional tests/scales, whereas Lokomat patients improved only on the TUG, DGI, and BBS. Most patients showed improvements above the relative smallest real difference in the TUG, 10MWT, and 6MWT.
Conclusions
Both end-effectors and exoskeletons may improve clinically relevant aspects of walking function. However, this study had a small sample, was retrospective, non-randomized, and had a significant number of drop-outs, therefore its findings should be interpreted carefully. Future studies are needed for investigating potential differences in clinical results, side effects, contraindications, and cost effectiveness between these 2 different types of RAGT.