Objective: To compare the effects of unilateral, proximal arm robot-assisted therapy combined with hand functional electrical stimulation with intensive conventional therapy for restoring arm function in survivors of subacute stroke. Design: This was a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation university hospital. Participants: Patients (N=40) diagnosed as having ischemic stroke (time since stroke <8wk) and upper limb impairment were enrolled. Interventions: Participants randomized to the experimental group received 30 sessions (5 sessions/wk) of robot-assisted arm therapy and hand functional electrical stimulation (RAT+FES). Participants randomized to the control group received a time-matched intensive conventional therapy. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was arm motor recovery measured with the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment. Secondary outcomes included motor function, arm spasticity, and activities of daily living. Measurements were performed at baseline, after 3 weeks, at the end of treatment, and at 6-month follow-up. Presence of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) was also measured at baseline. Results: Both groups significantly improved all outcome measures except for spasticity without differences between groups. Patients with moderate impairment and presence of MEPs who underwent early rehabilitation (<30d post stroke) demonstrated the greatest clinical improvements. Conclusions: RAT+FES was no more effective than intensive conventional arm training. However, at the same level of arm impairment and corticospinal tract integrity, it induced a higher level of arm recovery.

Effects of a Robot-Assisted Arm Training Plus Hand Functional Electrical Stimulation on Recovery After Stroke: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Straudi S.
Primo
;
Baroni A.;Mele S.;Craighero L.;Manfredini F.;Lamberti N.;Maietti E.
Penultimo
;
Basaglia N.
Ultimo
2020

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effects of unilateral, proximal arm robot-assisted therapy combined with hand functional electrical stimulation with intensive conventional therapy for restoring arm function in survivors of subacute stroke. Design: This was a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation university hospital. Participants: Patients (N=40) diagnosed as having ischemic stroke (time since stroke <8wk) and upper limb impairment were enrolled. Interventions: Participants randomized to the experimental group received 30 sessions (5 sessions/wk) of robot-assisted arm therapy and hand functional electrical stimulation (RAT+FES). Participants randomized to the control group received a time-matched intensive conventional therapy. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was arm motor recovery measured with the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment. Secondary outcomes included motor function, arm spasticity, and activities of daily living. Measurements were performed at baseline, after 3 weeks, at the end of treatment, and at 6-month follow-up. Presence of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) was also measured at baseline. Results: Both groups significantly improved all outcome measures except for spasticity without differences between groups. Patients with moderate impairment and presence of MEPs who underwent early rehabilitation (<30d post stroke) demonstrated the greatest clinical improvements. Conclusions: RAT+FES was no more effective than intensive conventional arm training. However, at the same level of arm impairment and corticospinal tract integrity, it induced a higher level of arm recovery.
2020
Straudi, S.; Baroni, A.; Mele, S.; Craighero, L.; Manfredini, F.; Lamberti, N.; Maietti, E.; Basaglia, N.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2020_ straudi.baroniAPMR.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: post print
Tipologia: Post-print
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 2.21 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.21 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2415658
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 16
  • Scopus 26
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 26
social impact