Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation in stroke patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis

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

Abstract

Technology-supported training is emerging as a solution to support therapists in their efforts providing high-intensity, repetitive, and task-specific treatment, in order to enhance the recovery process. The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness of different robotic devices (end-effector and exoskeleton robots) in comparison with any other type of intervention. Furthermore, we aim to assess whether or not better improvements are obtained in the sub-acute phase after stroke onset than in the chronic phase. A research was conducted in the electronic bibliographic databases Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. A total of 17 studies were included: 14 randomized controlled trials, 2 systematic reviews, and one meta-analysis. Fugl-Meyer and modified Ashworth scale were selected to measure primary outcomes, i.e., motor function and muscle tone. Functional independence measure and motor activity log were selected to measure secondary outcomes, i.e., activities of daily living. In comparison with conventional therapy, the robot-assisted rehabilitation is more effective in improving upper limb motor function recovery, especially in chronic stroke patients. No significant improvements are observed in the reduction of muscle tone or daily living activities. The present systematic review shows that the use of robotic devices can positively affect the recovery of arm function in patients with stroke.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization (2002) The world health report: 2002: reducing risks, promoting healthy life. WHO, Geneva http://www.who.int/whr/2002/en/

    Google Scholar 

  2. Carolei A, Sacco S, De Santis F, Marini C (2002) Epidemiology of stroke. Clin Exp Hypertens 24(7–8):479–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization (2008) The global burden disease: 2004 update. WHO, Geneva http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/2004_report_update/en/

    Google Scholar 

  4. Società Italiana Ipertensione Arteriosa (2014). Ictus: i numeri in Italia. Istituto Superiore Sanità: Progetto cuore. http://siia.it/i-numeri-in-italia/

  5. Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ahmed S, Gordon C, Higgins J, McEwen S, Salbach N (1999) Disablement following stroke. Disabil Rehabil 21(5–6):258–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nakayama H, Johrgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS (1994) Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75(4):394–398

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJ (2003) Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 34(9):2181–2186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Peppen RP, Kwakkel G, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hendriks HJ, Van der Wees PJ, Dekker J (2004) The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what’s the evidence? Clin Rehabil 18:833–862

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J, Frontera WR, Hogan N (2003) Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84(4):477–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pignolo L (2009) Robotics in neuro-rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med 41:955–960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lo HS, Xie SQ (2012) Exoskeleton robots for upper-limb rehabilitation: state of the art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys 34:261–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S (1975) The post-stroke hemiplegic patient 1: a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 7:13–31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bohannon RW, Smith MB (1987) Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther 67:206–207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liao WW, Wu CY, Hsieh YW, Lin KC, Chang WY (2012) Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation on daily function and real-world arm activity in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 26(2):111–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Knol DL, de Vet HC, Bouter LM (2004) Clinimetric properties of the motor activity log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients. Stroke 35:1410–1414

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Blobaum P (2006) Physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro). Journal of the Medical Library Association 94(4):477–478

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, Ramsay T, Bai A, Shukla VK, Grimshaw JM (2007) External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One 2(12):e1350

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sale P, Franceschini M, Mazzoleni S, Palma E, Agosti M, Posteraro F (2014) Effects of upper limb robot-assisted therapy on motor recovery in subacute stroke patients. J Neuroeng Rehabil 11:104

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Klamroth-Marganska V, Blanco J, Campen K, Curt A, Dietz V, Ettlin T, Felder M, Fellinghauer B, Guidali M, Kollmar A, Luft A, Nef T, Schuster-Amft C, Stahel W, Riener R (2014) Three-dimensional, task-specific robot therapy of the arm after stroke: a multicentre, parallel-group randomized trial. Lancet Neurol 13(2):159–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brokaw EB, Nichols D, Holley RJ, Lum PS (2014) Robotic therapy provides a stimulus for upper limb motor recovery after stroke that is complementary to and distinct from conventional therapy. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 28(4):367–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Burgar CG, Lum PS, Scremin AM, Garber SL, Van der Loos HF, Kenney D, Shor P (2011) Robot-assisted upper-limb therapy in acute rehabilitation setting following stroke: Department of Veterans Affairs multisite clinical trial. J Rehabil Res Dev 48(4):445–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Masiero S, Armani M, Rosati G (2011) Upper-limb robot-assisted therapy in rehabilitation of acute stroke patients: focused review and results of new randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Res Dev 48(4):355–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Liao WW, Lin KC, Wu KY, Lee CY (2011) Effects of treatment intensity in upper limb robot-assisted therapy for chronic stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 25(6):503–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, Haselkorn JK, Wittenberg GF, Federman DG, Ringer RJ, Wagner TH, Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Bever CT Jr, Bravata DM, Duncan PW, Corn BH, Maffucci AD, Nadeau SE, Conroy SS, Powell JM, Huang GD, Peduzzi P (2010) Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med 362(19):1772–1783

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Housman SJ, Scott KM, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2009) A randomized controlled trial of gravity-supported, computer-enhanced arm exercise for individuals with severe hemiparesis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 23(5):505–514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Volpe BT, Lynch D, Rykman-Berland A, Ferraro M, Galgano M, Hogan N, Krebs HI (2008) Intensive sensorimotor arm training mediated by therapist or robot improves hemiparesis in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 22(3):305–310

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Masiero S, Celia A, Rosati G, Armani M (2007) Robotic-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limb after acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88(2):142–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Van der Loos M, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Yap R (2006) MIME robotic device for upper-limb neurorehabilitation in subacute stroke subjects: a follow-up study. J Rehabil Res Dev 43(5):631–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hesse S, Werner C, Pohl M, Rueckriem S, Mehrholz J, Lingnau ML (2005) Computerized arm training improves the motor control of the severely affected arm after stroke: a single-blinded randomized trial in two centers. Stroke 36(9):1960–1966

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Van der Loos M (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 

  31. Jones TA, Adkins DL (2015) Motor system reorganization after stroke: stimulating and training toward perfection. Physiology (Bethesda) 30(5):358–370

    CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A (2009) Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 8(8):741–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Calabrò RS, De Cola MC, Leo A, Reitano S, Balletta T, Trombetta G, Naro A, Russo M, Bertè F, De Luca R, Bramanti P (2015) Robotic neurorehabilitation in patients with chronic stroke: psychological well-being beyond motor improvement. Int J Rehabil Res 38(3):219–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Verheyden G, Nieuwboer A, de Wit L, Thijs V, Dobbelaere J, Devos H, Severijns D, Vanbeveren S, De Weerdt W (2008) Time course of trunk, arm, leg, and functional recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Rep 22:173–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Volz LJ, Sarfeld AS, Diekhoff S, Rehme AK, Pool EM, Eickhoff SB, Fink GR, Grefkes C (2014) Motor cortex excitability and connectivity in chronic stroke: a multimodal model of functional reorganization. Brain Struct Funct 220:1093–1097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Calabrò RS, Russo M, Naro A, Milardi D, Balletta T, Leo A, Filoni S, Bramanti P (2016) Who may benefit from Armeo power treatment? A neurophysiological approach to predict neurorehabilitation outcomes. PM R 8(10):971–978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Murphy TH, Corbett D (2009) Plasticity during stroke recovery: from synapse to behavior. Nat Rev Neurosci 10:861–872

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kwakkel G, van Peppen R, Wagenaar RC (2004) Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke: a meta-analysis. Stroke 35:2529–2539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Raghavan P (2015) Upper limb motor impairment after stroke. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 26(4):599–610

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rocco Salvatore Calabrò.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bertani, R., Melegari, C., De Cola, M.C. et al. Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation in stroke patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Neurol Sci 38, 1561–1569 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-2995-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-2995-5

Keywords

Navigation