pp 1-5 | Cite as

Robot-Assisted Body-Weight-Supported Treadmill Training in Gait Impairment in Multiple Sclerosis Patients: A Pilot Study

  • Marek Łyp
  • Iwona Stanisławska
  • Bożena Witek
  • Ewelina Olszewska-Żaczek
  • Małgorzata Czarny-Działak
  • Ryszard Kaczor
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series


This study deals with the use of a robot-assisted body-weight-supported treadmill training in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with gait dysfunction. Twenty MS patients (10 men and 10 women) of the mean of 46.3 ± 8.5 years were assigned to a six-week-long training period with the use of robot-assisted treadmill training of increasing intensity of the Lokomat type. The outcome measure consisted of the difference in motion-dependent torque of lower extremity joint muscles after training compared with baseline before training. We found that the training uniformly and significantly augmented the torque of both extensors and flexors of the hip and knee joints. The muscle power in the lower limbs of SM patients was improved, leading to corrective changes of disordered walking movements, which enabled the patients to walk with less effort and less assistance of care givers. The torque augmentation could have its role in affecting the function of the lower extremity muscle groups during walking. The results of this pilot study suggest that the robot-assisted body-weight-supported treadmill training may be a potential adjunct measure in the rehabilitation paradigm of ‘gait reeducation’ in peripheral neuropathies.


Gait Joint function Lower extremity Multiple sclerosis Muscle strength Robot-assisted muscle actuator Torque Treadmill training 


Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.


  1. Aurich T, Warken B, Graser JV, Ulrich T, Borggraefe I, Heinen F, Meyer-Heim A, van Hedel HJ, Schroeder AS (2015) Practical recommendations for robot-assisted treadmill therapy (Lokomat) in children with cerebral palsy: indications, goal setting, and clinical implementation within the WHO-ICF framework. Neuropediatrics 46:248–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beer S, Aschbacher B, Manoglou D, Gamper E, Kool J, Kesselring J (2008) Robot-assisted gait training in multiple sclerosis: a pilot randomized trial. Mult Scler 14(2):231–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Calabrò RS, De Luca R, Leo A, Balletta T, Marra A, Bramanti P (2015) Lokomat training in vascular dementia: motor improvement and beyond! Aging Clin Exp Res 27:935–937CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dierick F, Dehas M, Isambert JL, Injeyan S, Bouché AF, Bleyenheuft Y, Portnoy S (2017) Hemorrhagic versus ischemic stroke: who can best benefit from blended conventional physiotherapy with robotic-assisted gait therapy? PLoS One 12(6):e0178636CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Gandara-Sambade T, Fernandez-Pereira M, Rodriguez-Sotillo A (2017) Robotic systems for gait re-education in cases of spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Rev Neurol 64(5):205–213. (Article in Spanish)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gor-García-Fogeda MD, Cano de la Cuerda R, Carratalá Tejada M, Alguacil-Diego IM, Molina-Rueda F (2016) Observational gait assessments in people with neurological disorders: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 97(1):131–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hart DL, Stobbe TJ, Till CV, Plummer RW (1984) Effect of muscle stabilization on quadriceps femoris torque. Phys Ther 64(9):1375–1380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoy MG, Zajac FE, Gordon ME (1990) A musculoskeletal model of the human lower extremity: the effect of muscle, tendon, and moment arm on the moment-angle relationship of musculotendon actuators at the hip, knee, and ankle. J Biomech 23:157–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kumru H, Benito-Penalva J, Valls-Sole J, Murillo N, Tormos JM, Flores C, Vidal J (2016a) Placebo-controlled study of rTMS combined with Lokomat® gait training for treatment in subjects with motor incomplete spinal cord injury. Exp Brain Res 234(12):3447–3455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kumru H, Murillo N, Benito-Penalva J, Tormos JM, Vidal J (2016b) Transcranial direct current stimulation is not effective in the motor strength and gait recovery following motor incomplete spinal cord injury during Lokomat® gait training. Neurosci Lett 620:143–147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lieber RL, Shoemaker SD (1992) Muscle, joint, and tendon contributions to the torque profile of frog hip joint. Am J Phys 263:R586–R590Google Scholar
  12. McClearn D (1985) Anatomy of raccoon (Procyon lotor) and caoti (Nasua narica and N. nasua) forearm and leg muscles: relations between fiber length, moment-arm length, and joint excursion. J Morphol 183:87–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Morawietz C, Moffat F (2013) Effects of locomotor training after incomplete spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 94(11):2297–2308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Nam KY, Kim HJ, Kwon BS, Park JW, Lee HJ, Yoo A (2017) Robot-assisted gait training (Lokomat) improves walking function and activity in people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 14:24CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Neckel ND, Blonien N, Nichols D, Hidler J (2008) Abnormal joint torque patterns exhibited by chronic stroke subjects while walking with a prescribed physiological gait pattern. J Neuroeng Rehabil 5:19CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Polman CH et al (2010) Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 69(2):292–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwartz I, Sajin A, Moreh E, Fisher I, Neeb M, Forest A, Vaknin-Dembinsky A, Karusis D, Meiner Z (2012) Robot-assisted gait training in multiple sclerosis patients: a randomized trial. Mult Scler 18:881–890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Swinnen E, Beckwée D, Pinte D, Meeusen R, Baeyens JP, Kerckhofs E (2012) Treadmill training in multiple sclerosis: can body weight supportor robot assistance provide added value? A systematic review. Mult Scler Int 2012:240274PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. van Kammen K, Boonstra AM, van der Woude LH, Reinders-Messelink HA, den Otter R (2016) The combined effects of guidance force, bodyweight support and gait speed on muscle activity during able-bodied walking in the Lokomat. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 36:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Kammen K, Boonstra AM, van der Woude LH, Reinders-Messelink HA, den Otter R (2017) Differences in muscle activity and temporal step parameters between Lokomat guided walking and treadmill walking in post-stroke hemiparetic patients and healthy walkers. J Neuroeng Rehabil 14(1):32CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Vaney C, Gattlen B, Lugon-Moulin V, Meichtry A, Hausammann R, Foinant D, Anchisi-Bellwald AM, Palaci C, Hilfiker R (2012) Robotic-assisted step training (Lokomat) not superior to equal intensity of over-ground rehabilitation in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 26(3):212–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Wallard L, Dietrich G, Kerlirzin Y, Bredin J (2017) Robotic-assisted gait training improves walking abilities in diplegic children with cerebral palsy. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 21:557–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wier LM, Hatcher MS, Triche EW, Lo AC (2011) Effect of robot-assisted versus conventional body-weight-supported treadmill training on quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis. J Rehabil Res Dev 48(4):483–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG  2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marek Łyp
    • 1
  • Iwona Stanisławska
    • 1
  • Bożena Witek
    • 2
  • Ewelina Olszewska-Żaczek
    • 1
  • Małgorzata Czarny-Działak
    • 3
  • Ryszard Kaczor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysiotherapyCollege of RehabilitationWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Department of Animal Physiology, Institute of BiologyThe Jan Kochanowski University in KielceKielcePoland
  3. 3.Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesThe Jan Kochanowski University in KielceKielcePoland

Personalised recommendations