Computerized arm training improves the motor control of the severely affected arm after stroke: a single-blinded randomized trial in two centers. Intensive sensorimotor arm training mediated by therapist or robot improves hemiparesis in patients with chronic stroke. Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation on daily function and real-world arm activity in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Robotic-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limb after acute stroke. A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation. Effectiveness of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral task training for arm during the subacute phase after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial. Response to upper-limb robotics and functional neuromuscular stimulation following stroke.
To compare a computerized arm trainer (AT), allowing repetitive practice of passive and active bilateral forearm and wrist movement cycle, and electromyography-initiated electrical stimulation (ES) of the paretic wrist extensor in severely affected subacute stroke patients.
                A total of 44 patients, 4 to 8 weeks after stroke causing severe arm paresis (Fugl-Meyer Motor Score [FM, 0 to 66] <18), were randomly assigned to either AT or ES. All patients practiced 20 minutes every workday for 6 weeks. AT patients performed 800 repetitions per session with the robot and ES patients performed 60 to 80 wrist extensions per session. The primary outcome measure was the blindly assessed FM (0 to 66), and the secondary measures were the upper limb muscle power (Medical Research Council [MRC] sum, 0 to 45) and muscle tone (Ashworth score sum, 0 to 25), assessed at the beginning and end of treatment and at 3-month follow-up.
                The AT group had a higher Barthel Index score at baseline, but the groups were otherwise homogenous. As expected, FM and MRC sum scores improved overtime in both groups but significantly more in the robot AT group. The initial Barthel Index score had no influence. In the robot AT group, FM score was 15 points higher at study end and 13 points higher at 3-month follow-up than the control ES group. MRC sum score was 15 points higher at study end and at 3-month follow-up compared with the control ES group. Muscle tone remained unchanged, and no side effects occurred.
                The computerized active arm training produced a superior improvement in upper limb motor control and power compared with ES in severely affected stroke patients. This is probably attributable to the greater number of repetitions and the bilateral approach. Investigators have demonstrated that a variety of intensive movement training protocols for persistent upper limb paralysis in patients with chronic stroke (6 months or more after stroke) improve motor outcome. This randomized controlled study determined in patients with upper limb motor impairment after chronic stroke whether movement therapy delivered by a robot or by a therapist using an intensive training protocol was superior. Robotic training (n = 11) and an intensive movement protocol (n = 10) improved the impairment measures of motor outcome significantly and comparably; there were no significant changes in disability measures. Motor gains were maintained at the 3-month evaluation after training. These data contribute to the growing awareness that persistent impairments in those with chronic stroke may not reflect exhausted capacity for improvement. These new protocols, rendered by either therapist or robot, can be standardized, tested, and replicated, and potentially will contribute to rational activity-based programs. To compare the outcome of robot-assisted therapy with dose-matched active control therapy by using accelerometers to study functional recovery in chronic stroke patients.
                Prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Setting: Stroke units in three medical centres. Subjects: Twenty patients post stroke for a mean of 22 months. Intervention: Robot-assisted therapy (n = 10) or dose-matched active control therapy (n = 10). All patients received either of these two therapies for 90-105 minutes each day, 5 days per week, for four weeks.
                Outcome measures included arm activity ratio (the ratio of mean activity between the impaired and unimpaired arm) and scores on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale, Functional Independence Measure, Motor Activity Log and ABILHAND questionnaire.
                The robot-assisted therapy group significantly increased motor function, hemiplegic arm activity and bilateral arm coordination (Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale: 51.20 ± 8.82, P = 0.002; mean arm activity ratio: 0.76 ± 0.10, P = 0.026; ABILHAND questionnaire: 1.24 ± 0.28, P = 0.043) compared with the dose-matched active control group (Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale: 40.90 ± 13.14; mean arm movement ratio: 0.69 ± 0.11; ABILHAND questionnaire: 0.95 ± 0.43).
                Symmetrical and bilateral robotic practice, combined with functional task training, can significantly improve motor function, arm activity, and self-perceived bilateral arm ability in patients late after stroke. To investigate whether early therapy with a novel robotic device can reduce motor impairment and enhance functional recovery of poststroke patients with hemiparetic and hemiplegic upper limb.
                A single-blind randomized controlled trial, with an 8-month follow-up.
                Neurologic department and rehabilitation hospital.
                Thirty-five patients with acute (< or =1 wk of onset), unilateral, ischemic embolic, or thrombotic stroke.
                Patients of both groups received the same dose and length per day of standard poststroke multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups. The experimental group (n=17) received additional early sensorimotor robotic training, 4 hours a week for 5 weeks; the control group (n=18) was exposed to the robotic device, 30 minutes a week, twice a week, but the exercises were performed with the unimpaired upper limb. Training by robot consisted of peripheral manipulation of the shoulder and elbow of the impaired limb, correlated with visual stimuli.
                The Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) of upper-extremity function (shoulder/elbow and coordination and wrist/hand subsections) to measure each trained limb segment; the Medical Research Council (MRC) score to measure the strength of muscle force during 3 actions: shoulder abduction (MRC deltoid), elbow flexion (MRC biceps), and wrist flexion (MRC wrist flexors); the FIM instrument and its motor component; and the Trunk Control Test (TCT) and Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS).
                Compared with the patients in the control group, the experimental group showed significant gains in motor impairment and functional recovery of the upper limb after robot therapy, as measured by the MRC deltoid (P< or =.05) and biceps (P<.05) scores, the FMA for the proximal upper arm (P<.05), the FIM instrument (P<.05), and the FIM motor score (P<.01); these gains were also sustained at the 3- and 8-month follow-up. The FMA and MRC wrist flexor test findings did not differ statistically either at the end of training or at the follow-up sessions. We found no significant differences in MAS and TCT in either group in any of the evaluations. No adverse effects occurred and the robotic approach was very well accepted.
                Patients who received robotic therapy in addition to conventional therapy showed greater reductions in motor impairment and improvements in functional abilities. Robotic therapy may therefore effectively complement standard rehabilitation from the start, by providing therapeutic support for patients with poststroke plegic and paretic upper limb. In patients with stroke, the authors tested whether additional sensorimotor training of the paralyzed or paretic upper limb delivered by a robotic device enhanced motor outcome.
                Fifty-six patients with stroke and hemiparesis or hemiplegia received standard poststroke multidisciplinary rehabilitation, and were randomly assigned either to receive robotic training (at least 25 hours) or exposure to the robotic device without training. Outcomes were assessed by the same masked raters, before treatment began and at the end of treatment, with the upper extremity component of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment, the Motor Status score, the Motor Power score, and Functional Independence Measurement.
                The robot treatment and control group had comparable clinical characteristics, lesion size, and pretreatment impairment scores. By the end of treatment, the robot-trained group demonstrated improvement in motor outcome for the trained shoulder and elbow (Motor Power score, p < 0.001; Motor Status score, p < 0. 01) that did not generalize to untrained wrist and hand. The robot-treated group also demonstrated significantly improved functional outcome (Functional Independence Measurement-Motor, p < 0. 01).
                Robot-delivered quantitative and reproducible sensorimotor training enhanced the motor performance of the exercised shoulder and elbow. The robot-treated group also demonstrated improved functional outcome. When added to standard multidisciplinary rehabilitation, robotics provides novel therapeutic strategies that focus on impairment reduction and improved motor performance. To evaluate the effect of an arm training programme combining repetition of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral tasks for people in the subacute phase after stroke.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Inpatient functional rehabilitation unit.
                Forty-one people who had had a stroke, in the subacute phase, receiving conventional arm occupational and physical therapy, were randomized to an experimental group (n=20) and a control group (n=21).
                In addition to the usual arm therapy in the rehabilitation unit, the experimental group received an arm therapy programme (15-20 45-min sessions) based on repetition of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral tasks. The control group received additional usual arm therapy of a similar duration and frequency to the experimental treatment.
                The effect of the programme was judged on the basis of: (1) arm impairments (motor function, grip strength, gross and fine manual dexterity and motor co-ordination), (2) arm disabilities in tasks related to daily activities, and (3) functional independence in activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL).
                Although both experimental and control groups of participants improved similarly during the study period, the statistical analyses did not show any difference between the groups at the end of the treatment for the different dependent variables evaluated: (1) arm impairments: p = 0.43-0.79; (2) arm disabilities: p = 0.16-0.90; and (3) functional independence: p = 0.63 and 0.90.
                An arm training programme based on repetition of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral practice did not reduce impairment and disabilities nor improve functional outcomes in the subacute phase after stroke more than the usual therapy. To compare the effects of robot-assisted movement training with conventional techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke.
                Randomized controlled trial, 6-month follow-up.
                A Department of Veterans Affairs rehabilitation research and development center.
                Consecutive sample of 27 subjects with chronic hemiparesis (>6mo after cerebrovascular accident) randomly allocated to group.
                All subjects received twenty-four 1-hour sessions over 2 months. Subjects in the robot group practiced shoulder and elbow movements while assisted by a robot manipulator. Subjects in the control group received neurodevelopmental therapy (targeting proximal upper limb function) and 5 minutes of exposure to the robot in each session.
                Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor impairment, FIMtrade mark instrument, and biomechanic measures of strength and reaching kinematics. Clinical evaluations were performed by a therapist blinded to group assignments.
                Compared with the control group, the robot group had larger improvements in the proximal movement portion of the Fugl-Meyer test after 1 month of treatment (P<.05) and also after 2 months of treatment (P<.05). The robot group had larger gains in strength (P<.02) and larger increases in reach extent (P<.01) after 2 months of treatment. At the 6-month follow-up, the groups no longer differed in terms of the Fugl-Meyer test (P>.30); however, the robot group had larger improvements in the FIM (P<.04).
                Compared with conventional treatment, robot-assisted movements had advantages in terms of clinical and biomechanical measures. Further research into the use of robotic manipulation for motor rehabilitation is justified.
                Copyright 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation We investigated the effects of different intensities of arm and leg rehabilitation training on the functional recovery of activities of daily living (ADL), walking ability, and dexterity of the paretic arm, in a single-blind randomised controlled trial.
                Within 14 days after stroke onset, 101 severely disabled patients with a primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke were randomly assigned to: a rehabilitation programme with emphasis on arm training; a rehabilitation programme with emphasis on leg training; or a control programme in which the arm and leg were immobilised with an inflatable pressure splint. Each treatment regimen was applied for 30 min, 5 days a week during the first 20 weeks after stroke. In addition, all patients underwent a basic rehabilitation programme. The main outcome measures were ability in ADL (Barthel index), walking ability (functional ambulation categories), and dexterity of the paretic arm (Action Research arm test) at 6, 12, 20, and 26 weeks. Analyses were by intention to treat.
                At week 20, the leg-training group (n=31) had higher scores than the control group (n=37) for ADL ability (median 19 [IQR 16-20] vs 16 [10-19], p<0.05), walking ability (4 [3-5] vs 3 [1-4], p<0.05), and dexterity (2 [0-56] vs 0 [0-2], p<0.01). The arm-training group (n=33) differed significantly from the control group only in dexterity (9 [0-39] vs 0 [0-2], p<0.01). There were no significant differences in these endpoints at 20 weeks between the arm-training and leg-training groups.
                Greater intensity of leg rehabilitation improves functional recovery and health-related functional status, whereas greater intensity of arm rehabilitation results in small improvements in dexterity, providing further evidence that exercise therapy primarily induces treatment effects on the abilities at which training is specifically aimed. Twelve moderately to severely involved chronic stroke survivors (>12 mo) were randomized to one of two treatments: robotics and motor learning (ROB-ML) or functional neuromuscular stimulation and motor learning (FNS-ML). Treatment was 5 h/d, 5 d/wk for 12 wk. ROB-ML group had 1.5 h per session devoted to robotics shoulder and elbow (S/E) training. FNS-ML had 1.5 h per session devoted to functional neuromuscular stimulation (surface electrodes) for wrist and hand (W/H) flexors/extensors. The primary outcome measure was the functional measure Arm Motor Ability Test (AMAT). Secondary measures were AMAT-S/E and AMAT-W/H, Fugl-Meyer (FM) upper-limb coordination, and the motor control measures of target accuracy (TA) and smoothness of movement (SM). ROB-ML produced significant gains in AMAT, AMAT-S/E, FM upper-limb coordination, TA, and SM. FNS-ML produced significant gains in AMAT-W/H and FM upper-limb coordination.
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.