Effects of robotic rehabilitation on recovery of hand functions in acute stroke: A preliminary randomized controlled study.
Saved in:
| Title: | Effects of robotic rehabilitation on recovery of hand functions in acute stroke: A preliminary randomized controlled study. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Coskunsu, Dilber Karagozoglu (AUTHOR), Akcay, Sumeyye (AUTHOR), Ogul, Ozden Erkan (AUTHOR), Akyol, D. Kubra (AUTHOR), Ozturk, Necla (AUTHOR), Zileli, Füsun (AUTHOR), Tuzun, Birgul Baştan (AUTHOR), Krespi, Yakup (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Acta Neurologica Scandinavica. Nov2022, Vol. 146 Issue 5, p499-511. 13p. |
| Subjects: | Stroke patients, Robot hands, Activities of daily living, Robotic exoskeletons, Extensor muscles |
| Abstract: | Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of EMG‐driven robotic rehabilitation on hand motor functions and daily living activities of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Materials & Method: A preliminary randomized‐controlled, single‐blind trial rectuited twenty‐four patients with acute ischemic stroke (<1 month after cerebrovascular accident) and randomly allocated to experimental group (EG) and control group (CG). Neurophysiological rehabilitation program was performed to both EG and CG for 5 days a week and totally 15 sessions. The EG also received robotic rehabilitation with the EMG‐driven exoskeleton hand robot (Hand of Hope®, Rehab‐Robotics Company) 15 sessions over 3 weeks. Hand motor functions (Fugl‐Meyer Assessment‐Upper Extremity (FMA‐UE) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)), activities of daily living (Motor Activity Log (MAL)), force and EMG activities of extensor and flexor muscles for the cup test were evaluated before treatment (pretreatment) and after the 15th session (posttreatment). Results: Eleven patients (59.91 ± 14.20 yr) in the EG and 9 patients (70 ± 14.06 yr) in the CG completed the study. EG did not provide a significant advantage compared with the CG in FMA‐UE, ARAT and MAL scores and cup‐force and EMG activities (p >.05 for all). Conclusion: In this preliminary study, improvement in motor functions, daily living activities and force were found in both groups. However, addition of the EMG‐driven robotic treatment to the neurophysiological rehabilitation program did not provide an additional benefit to the clinical outcomes in 3 weeks in acute stroke patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Acta Neurologica Scandinavica is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of EMG‐driven robotic rehabilitation on hand motor functions and daily living activities of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Materials & Method: A preliminary randomized‐controlled, single‐blind trial rectuited twenty‐four patients with acute ischemic stroke (<1 month after cerebrovascular accident) and randomly allocated to experimental group (EG) and control group (CG). Neurophysiological rehabilitation program was performed to both EG and CG for 5 days a week and totally 15 sessions. The EG also received robotic rehabilitation with the EMG‐driven exoskeleton hand robot (Hand of Hope®, Rehab‐Robotics Company) 15 sessions over 3 weeks. Hand motor functions (Fugl‐Meyer Assessment‐Upper Extremity (FMA‐UE) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)), activities of daily living (Motor Activity Log (MAL)), force and EMG activities of extensor and flexor muscles for the cup test were evaluated before treatment (pretreatment) and after the 15th session (posttreatment). Results: Eleven patients (59.91 ± 14.20 yr) in the EG and 9 patients (70 ± 14.06 yr) in the CG completed the study. EG did not provide a significant advantage compared with the CG in FMA‐UE, ARAT and MAL scores and cup‐force and EMG activities (p >.05 for all). Conclusion: In this preliminary study, improvement in motor functions, daily living activities and force were found in both groups. However, addition of the EMG‐driven robotic treatment to the neurophysiological rehabilitation program did not provide an additional benefit to the clinical outcomes in 3 weeks in acute stroke patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00016314 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/ane.13672 |
