Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of an upper limb robotic rehabilitation program on motor functions, quality of life, cognition, and emotional status in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neurological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 06 March 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

Objective

This study aims to find out whether including robotic therapy in addition to a conventional rehabilitation program affects the quality of life, motor function, cognition, and emotional status of hemiplegic patients.

Design

Thirty-seven stroke patients recruited between April 2016 and April 2019 were included in the study. The patients were randomized into 2 groups (Robotic rehabilitation group-RR n:17, Control group n:20), RR was arranged to be 30–45 min, 5 days per week for 4 weeks. All patients were assessed at the beginning of therapy and the end of 4th week with Brunnstrom stages of motor recovery, Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), handgrip strength, Purdue peg test, Minnesota manual dexterity test, Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL), Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES- D).

Results

Improvements in motor function scores, spasticity, general functioning, activities of daily living, cognitive assessment were better in the robotic group when compared to the control group but this difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Improvement in the CES-D in the RR-group was better in comparison to the control group (p = 0.018).

Conclusion

Improvements in motor functions were observed after the treatment in both groups. Although RR group improved better in numbers, none of the outcomes except the CES-D scale were significant. Robotic rehabilitation provides a favorable alternative bringing slight benefits, and also is advantageous in terms of work power and psychological recovery, making its addition to conventional neurological rehabilitation effective and useful in patient management after stroke.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04393480

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Teasell R, Foley N et al (2009) Evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation: executive summary. Top Stroke Rehabil 16(6):463–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schönberger M, Humle F et al (2006) Patient compliance in brain injury rehabilitation in relation to awareness and cognitive and physical improvement. Neuropsychol Rehabil 16(5):561–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tu W-J, Qiu H-C et al (2018) Decreased concentration of irisin is associated with poor functional outcome in ischemic stroke. Neurotherapeutics 15(4):1158–1167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Norouzi-Gheidari N, Archambault PS et al (2012) Effects of robot-assisted therapy on stroke rehabilitation in upper limbs: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Rehabil Res Dev 49(4):479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rosati G, Oscari F, et al (eds) (2011) Improving robotics for neurorehabilitation: enhancing engagement, performance, and learning with auditory feedback. Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), 2011 IEEE International Conference on: IEEE

  6. Aisen ML, Krebs HI et al (1997) The effect of robot-assisted therapy and rehabilitative training on motor recovery following stroke. Arch Neurol 54(4):443–446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lo AC, Guarino PD et al (2010) Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med 362(19):1772–1783

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Paolucci T, Agostini F, Mangone M, Bernetti A, Pezzi L, Liotti V, Recubini E, Cantarella C, Bellomo RG, D’Aurizio C, Saggini R (2021) Robotic rehabilitation for end-effector device and botulinum toxin in upper limb rehabilitation in chronic post-stroke patients: an integrated rehabilitative approach. Neurol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05185-3

  9. Nef T, Klamroth-Marganska V, Keller U, Riener R (2016) Three-dimensional multi-degree-of-freedom arm therapy robot (ARMin). In: Neurorehabilitation technology. Springer, Cham, pp 351–374

  10. Chang WH, Kim Y-H (2013) Robot-assisted therapy in stroke rehabilitation. Journal of stroke 15(3):174

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lum PS, Burgar CG et al (2002) Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83(7):952–959

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Teasell R, Bayona N, Bitensky J (2016) Background concepts in stroke rehabilitation. Evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation. Heart and Stroke Foundation Canadian Partnership for Stroke Recovery

  13. Stefan K, Kunesch E et al (2000) Induction of plasticity in the human motor cortex by paired associative stimulation. Brain 123(3):572–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Calabrò RS, Naro A et al (2018) Shaping neuroplasticity by using powered exoskeletons in patients with stroke: a randomized clinical trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil 15(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Aprile I, Guardati G et al (2020) Robotic rehabilitation: an opportunity to improve cognitive functions in subjects with stroke. An explorative study. Front Neurol 11:1498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Charalambous CP (2014) Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. In: Classic papers in orthopaedics. Springer, London, pp 415–417

  17. Linacre JM, Heinemann AW et al (1994) The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75(2):127–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Küçükdeveci AA, Yavuzer G et al (2001) Adaptation of the Functional Independence Measure for use in Turkey. Clin Rehabil 15(3):311–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Green J, Young J (2001) A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil 23(15):670–676

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sahin F, Yilmaz F et al (2008) Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale. Aging Clin Exp Res 20(5):400–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ et al (2002) The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 16(3):232–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tiffin J, Asher EJ (1948) The Purdue Pegboard: norms and studies of reliability and validity. J Appl Psychol 32(3):234–247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Desrosiers J, Rochette A et al (1997) The Minnesota Manual Dexterity Test: reliability, validity and reference values studies with healthy elderly people. Can J Occup Ther 64(5):270–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Williams LS, Weinberger M et al (1999) Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke 30(7):1362–1369

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA et al (2005) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53(4):695–699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hann D, Winter K et al (1999) Measurement of depressive symptoms in cancer patients: evaluation of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). J Psychosom Res 46(5):437–443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tatar A, Saltukoglu G (2010) The adaptation of the CES-depression scale into Turkish through the use of confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory and the examination of psychometric characteristics. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni-Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology 20(3):213–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Masiero S, Armani M et al (2013) Randomized trial of a robotic assistive device for the upper extremity during early ınpatient stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 28(4):377–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Klamroth-Marganska V, Blanco J et al (2014) Three-dimensional, task-specific robot therapy of the arm after stroke: a multicentre, parallel-group randomised trial. The Lancet Neurology 13(2):159–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Takahashi K, Domen K et al (2016) Efficacy of upper extremity robotic therapy in subacute poststroke hemiplegia. Stroke 47(5):1385–1388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tomić TJD, Savić AM et al (2017) ArmAssist robotic system versus matched conventional therapy for poststroke upper limb rehabilitation: a randomized clinical trial. Biomed Res Int 2017:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bertani R, Melegari C et al (2017) Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation in stroke patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Neurol Sci 38(9):1561–1569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Veerbeek JM, Langbroek-Amersfoort AC et al (2016) Effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 31(2):107–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Prange GB, Jannink MJA et al (2006) Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 43(2):171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang C, Li-Tsang CWP et al (2017) Robotic approaches for the rehabilitation of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Rehabil Res 40(1):19–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zengin-Metli D, Özbudak-Demir S et al (2018) Effects of robot assistive upper extremity rehabilitation on motor and cognitive recovery, the quality of life, and activities of daily living in stroke patients. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 31(6):1059–1064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Adomavičienė A, Daunoravičienė K et al (2019) Influence of new technologies on post-stroke rehabilitation: a comparison of armeo spring to the kinect system. Medicina 55(4):98

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Bornova, İzmir, Turkey

    Sahel Taravati, Kazim Capaci, Hale Uzumcugil & Goksel Tanigor

Authors
  1. Sahel Taravati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kazim Capaci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hale Uzumcugil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Goksel Tanigor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Taravati Sahel: concepts, design, literature search, clinical studies, data acquisition, manuscript preparation.

Karapolat Hale: concepts, design, literature search, manuscript preparation, data analysis, manuscript review.

Capaci Kazim: concepts, design, clinical studies, data acquisition, manuscript preparation.

Tanigor Goksel: literature search, data analysis, manuscript editing, manuscript review analysis, manuscript review.

This manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors, the requirements for authorship have been met, and each author declares that the manuscript represents honest work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Goksel Tanigor.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of Ege University Faculty of Medicine Institutional Review Board.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taravati, S., Capaci, K., Uzumcugil, H. et al. Evaluation of an upper limb robotic rehabilitation program on motor functions, quality of life, cognition, and emotional status in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled study. Neurol Sci 43, 1177–1188 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05431-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05431-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation