The aim of this study was to explore the application value of the lower limbs robot-assisted training system for post-total knee replacement (TKR) gait rehabilitation. A total of 60 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee were equally randomized into the traditional and robot-assisted rehabilitation training groups within 1 week after TKR. All patients received 2-week training. Scores of hospital for special surgery (HSS), knee kinesthesia grades, knee proprioception grades, functional ambulation (FAC) scores, Berg balance scores, 10-m sitting–standing time, and 6-min walking distances were compared between the groups. The HSS score, Berg score, 10-m sitting–standing time, and 6-min walking distance of the robot-assisted training group were significantly higher than the control group (P < 0.05). Its knee kinesthesia grade, knee proprioception grade, and FAC score were better than the control group but not significantly (P > 0.05). Lower limbs robot-assisted rehabilitation training improves post-TKR patients’ knee proprioception and stability more effectively compared with the traditional method. It improves patients’ gait and symptoms, increases their walking speed, and prolongs their walking distances, which benefit their return to family and society.
Total knee replacement Robot Rehabilitation
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This study was supported by the Health Bureau of Zhejiang Province (YH200805).
Conflict of interest
Muiesan ML, Boni E, Castellano M et al (1993) Effects of transdermal nitroglycerin in combination with an ACE inhibitor in patients with chronic stable angina pectoris. Eur Heart J 14:1701–1708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genêt F, Gouin F, Coudeyre E, Revel M, Rannou F (2007) The benefits of ambulatory physiotherapy after total hip replacement. Clinical practice recommendations. Ann Readapt Med Phys 50:776–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Zahrani KS, Bakheit AM (2002) A study of gait characteristic of patients with chronic osteoarthritis of the knee. Disabil Rehabil 24:275–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gök H, Ergin S, Yavuzer G (2002) Kinetic and kinematic characteristic of gait in patients with medial knee arthrosis. Acta Orthop Scan 73:647–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen B, Zimmerman JR, Soulen L, DeLisa JA (2000) Continuous passive motion after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 79:421–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehelt H, Wilmore DW (2002) Multi-modal strategies to improve surgical outcome. Am J Surg 183:630–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viton JM, Atlani L, Mesure S (2002) Reorganization of equilibrium and movement control strategies after total knee arthroplasty. J Rehabil Med 34:12–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz V, Gollhofer A, Kleiber M, Trippel M (1992) Regulation of bipedal stance: dependency on “load” receptors. Exp Brain Res 89:229–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sehutte MJ, Dabezias EJ, Zimn y ML, Happel LT (1987) Neural anatomy of the human anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg 69:243–247Google Scholar
Mouchnino L, Gueguen N, Blanchard C, Boulay C, Gimet G, Viton JM, Franceschi JP, Delarque A (2005) Sensori-motor adaptation to knee osteoarthritis during stepping-down before and after total knee replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 6:21PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Donald PB, Hedden D, Pacin O, Sutherland K (1996) Proprioception in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient and reconstructed knees. Am J Sports Med 24:774–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerosch J, Prymka M (1996) Knee joint proprioception in normal volunteers and patients with anterior cruciate ligaments tears, taking special account of the effect of a knee bandage. Arch Orthop Tranma Surg 115:162–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson MJ (2006) Recent trends in robot-assisted therapy environments to improve real-life functional performance after stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil 18:29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amirabdollahian F, Loureiro R, Gradwell E, Collin C, Harwin W, Johnson G (2007) Multivariate analysis of the Fugl-Meyer outcome measures assessing the effectiveness of GENTLE/S robot-mediated stroke therapy. J Neuroeng Rehabil 19:44Google Scholar
Müller F, Heller S, Krewer C, Husemann B, Koenig E (2004) Effective gait training on the treadmill and the Lokomat: comparison of achievable training time and speed. Neurol Rehabil 4:27Google Scholar
Aoyagi D, Ichinose WE, Harkema SJ, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Bobrow JE (2007) A robot and control algorithm that can synchronously assist in naturalistic motion during body-weight-supported gait training following neurologic injury. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 15:387–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husemann B, Müller F, Krewer C, Heller S, Koenig E (2007) Effects of locomotion training with assistance of a robot-driven gait orthosis in hemiparetic patients after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Stroke 38:349–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz V, Müller R, Colombo G (2002) Locomotor activity in spinal man: significance of afferent input from joint and load receptors. Brain 125:2626–2634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar