Abstract
Background
There is consistent evidence that robotic rehabilitation is at least as effective as conventional physiotherapy for upper extremity (UE) recovery after stroke, suggesting to focus research on which subgroups of patients may better respond to either intervention. In this study, we evaluated which baseline variables are associated with the response after the two approaches.
Methods
This is a secondary analysis of a randomized-controlled trial comparing robotic and conventional treatment for the UE. After the assigned intervention, changes of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment UE score by ≥ 5 points classified patients as responders to treatment. Variables associated with the response were identified in a univariate analysis. Then, variables independently associated with recovery were investigated, in the whole group, and the two groups separately.
Results
A sample of 190 patients was evaluated after the treatment; 121 were responders. Age, baseline impairment, and neglect were significantly associated with worse response to the treatment. Age was the only independently associated variable (OR 0.967, p = 0.023). Considering separately the two interventions, age remained negatively associated with recovery (OR 0.948, p = 0.013) in the conventional group, while none of the variables previously identified were significantly associated with the response to treatment in the robotic group.
Conclusions
We found that, in our sample, age is significantly associated with the outcome after conventional but not robotic UE rehabilitation. Possible explanations may include an enhanced positive attitude of the older patients towards technological training and reduced age-associated fatigue provided by robotic-assisted exercise. The possibly higher challenge proposed by robotic training, unbiased by the negative stereotypes concerning very old patients’ expectations and chances to recover, may also explain our findings.
Trial registration number
NCT02879279.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The authors are available to send data to those who reasonably request it.
References
Murray CJL, Vos T, Lozano R et al (2012) Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380:2197–2223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61689-4
Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS (1995) Recovery of walking function in stroke patients: the copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76:27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80038-7
Nakayama H, Jørgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS (1994) Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75:394–398
Feigin VL, Forouzanfar MH, Krishnamurthi R et al (2014) Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990–2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 383:245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61953-4
Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJH (2003) Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 34:2181–2186
Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A (2009) Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 8:741–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4
Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC et al (2014) Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010820.pub2
Krebs HI, Palazzolo JJ, Dipietro L et al (2003) Rehabilitation robotics: performance-based progressive robot-assisted therapy. Auton Robots 15:7–20. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024494031121
Kwakkel G (2009) Towards integrative neurorehabilitation science. Physiother Res Int 14:137–146
Prange GB, Jannink MJA, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM et al (2006) Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev 43:171–183
Colombo R, Pisano F, Micera S et al (2005) Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 13:311–324. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2005.848352
Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T et al (2018) Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD006876. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006876.pub5
Rodgers H, Bosomworth H, Krebs HI et al (2019) Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 394:51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31055-4
Aprile I, Germanotta M, Cruciani A et al (2020) Upper limb robotic rehabilitation after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther 44:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0000000000000295
Jakob I, Kollreider A, Germanotta M et al (2018) Robotic and sensor technology for upper limb rehabilitation. PM&R 10:S189–S197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.07.011
Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC 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 83:952–959. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2001.33101
Stinear CM, Smith MC, Byblow WD (2019) Prediction tools for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 50:3314–3322
Nijland RHM, Van Wegen EEH, Harmeling-Van Der Wel BC, Kwakkel G (2010) Presence of finger extension and shoulder abduction within 72 hours after stroke predicts functional recovery: early prediction of functional outcome after stroke: the EPOS cohort study. Stroke 41:745–750. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.572065
Stinear CM, Byblow WD, Ackerley SJ et al (2017) PREP2: a biomarker-based algorithm for predicting upper limb function after stroke. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 4:811–820. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.488
Byblow WD, Stinear CM, Barber PA et al (2015) Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann Neurol 78:848–859. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24472
Feng W, Wang J, Chhatbar PY et al (2015) Corticospinal tract lesion load: an imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes. Ann Neurol 78:860–870. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24510
Winters C, van Wegen EEH, Daffertshofer A, Kwakkel G (2015) Generalizability of the proportional recovery model for the upper extremity after an ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 29:614–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968314562115
Buch ER, Rizk S, Nicolo P et al (2016) Predicting motor improvement after stroke with clinical assessment and diffusion tensor imaging. Neurology 86:1924–1925. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000002675
Stinear CM, Byblow WD, Ackerley SJ et al (2017) Proportional motor recovery after stroke. Stroke 48:795–798. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016020
Hawe RL, Scott SH, Dukelow SP (2019) Taking proportional out of stroke recovery. Stroke 50:204–211. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.118.023006
Hope TMH, Friston K, Price CJ et al (2019) Recovery after stroke: not so proportional after all? Brain 142:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awy302
Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I et al (1975) The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 7:13–31
Woytowicz EJ, Rietschel JC, Goodman RN et al (2017) Determining levels of upper extremity movement impairment by applying a cluster analysis to the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 98:456–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.06.023
Zarahn E, Alon L, Ryan SL et al (2011) Prediction of motor recovery using initial impairment and fMRI 48 h poststroke. Cereb Cortex 21:2712–2721. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr047
Puig J, Blasco G, Daunis-I-Estadella J et al (2013) Decreased corticospinal tract fractional anisotropy predicts long-term motor outcome after stroke. Stroke 44:2016–2018. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000382
Page SJ, Fulk GD, Boyne P (2012) Clinically important differences for the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer Scale in people with minimal to moderate impairment due to chronic stroke. Phys Ther 92:791–798. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20110009
Lee YY, Hsieh YW, Wu CY et al (2015) Proximal Fugl-Meyer assessment scores predict clinically important upper limb improvement after 3 stroke rehabilitative interventions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 96:2137–2144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2015.07.019
Lang TA, Lang T, Secic M (2006) How to report statistics in medicine: annotated guidelines for authors, editors, and reviewers. ACP Press, Sydney
Mehrholz J (2019) Is electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training effective for improving arm function in people who have had a stroke? A Cochrane review summary with commentary. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-900000000-98325
Habegger S, Wiest R, Weder BJ et al (2018) Relating acute lesion loads to chronic outcome in ischemic stroke-an exploratory comparison of mismatch patterns and predictive modeling. Front Neurol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00737
Coupar F, Pollock A, Rowe P et al (2012) Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 26:291–313
Kwah LK, Harvey LA, Diong J, Herbert RD (2013) Models containing age and NIHSS predict recovery of ambulation and upper limb function six months after stroke: an observational study. J Physiother 59:189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1836-9553(13)70183-8
Hsieh YW, Lin KC, Wu CY et al (2014) Predicting clinically significant changes in motor and functional outcomes after robot-assisted stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 95:316–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.09.018
Franceschini M, Goffredo M, Pournajaf S et al (2018) Predictors of activities of daily living outcomes after upper limb robot-assisted therapy in subacute stroke patients. PLoS ONE 13:e0193235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193235
Leem MJ, Kim GS, Kim KH et al (2019) Predictors of functional and motor outcomes following upper limb robot-assisted therapy after stroke. Int J Rehabil Res 42:223–228. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000349
Persson HC, Opheim A, Lundgren-Nilsson Å et al (2016) Upper extremity recovery after ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke: part of the SALGOT study. Eur Stroke J 1:310–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396987316672809
Morone G, Masiero S, Coiro P et al (2018) Clinical features of patients who might benefit more from walking robotic training. Restor Neurol Neurosci 36:293–299. https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-170799
Joyce K, Loe M (2010) A sociological approach to ageing, technology and health. Sociol Heal Illn 32:171–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01219.x
Shibata T, Wada K (2011) Robot therapy: a new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly—a mini-review. Gerontology 57:378–386
Mannheim I, Schwartz E, Xi W et al (2019) Inclusion of older adults in the research and design of digital technology. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193718
Betts LR, Hill R, Gardner SE (2019) “There’s not enough knowledge out there”: examining older adults’ perceptions of digital technology use and digital inclusion classes. J Appl Gerontol 38:1147–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817737621
Joyce K, Mamo L (2006) Graying the Cyborg: new directions in feminist analyses of aging, science, and technology. Age matters: re-aligning feminist thinking. Routledge, New York, pp 99–121
Kvitek SDB, Shaver BJ, Blood H, Shepard KF (1986) Age bias: physical therapists and older patients. J Gerontol 41:706–709. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/41.6.706
Blackwood J, Sweet C (2017) The influence of ageism, experience, and relationships with older adults on physical therapy students’ perception of geriatrics. Gerontol Geriatr Educ 38:219–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2015.1079709
Dobrowolska B, Jędrzejkiewicz B, Pilewska-Kozak A et al (2019) Age discrimination in healthcare institutions perceived by seniors and students. Nurs Ethics 26:443–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733017718392
Bingham D (2019) Older workforces: re-imagining later life learning. Routledge, New York
Longobucco Y, Benedetti C, Tagliaferri S et al (2019) Proactive interception and care of frailty and multimorbidity in older persons: the experience of the European innovation partnership on active and healthy ageing and the response of parma local health trust and lab through European projects. Acta Biomed 90:364–374. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v90i2.8419
Kristensen HK, Tistad M, Von Koch L, Ytterberg C (2016) The importance of patient involvement in stroke rehabilitation. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157149
Banz R, Bolliger M, Colombo G et al (2008) Computerized visual feedback: an adjunct to robotic-assisted gait training. Phys Ther 88:1135–1145. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20070203
Babaiasl M, Mahdioun SH, Jaryani P, Yazdani M (2016) A review of technological and clinical aspects of robot-aided rehabilitation of upper-extremity after stroke. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 11:263–280. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.1002539
Ramirez-Fernandez C, Moran AL, Garcia-Canseco E (2015) Haptic feedback in motor hand virtual therapy increases precision and generates less mental workload. In: Proceedings of the 2015 9th international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare, Pervasive health 2015, pp 280–286
Masiero S, Poli P, Rosati G et al (2014) The value of robotic systems in stroke rehabilitation. Expert Rev Med Devices 11:187–198
Lefeber N, Swinnen E, Kerckhofs E (2017) The immediate effects of robot-assistance on energy consumption and cardiorespiratory load during walking compared to walking without robot-assistance: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 12:657–671
Cecchi F, Pancani S, Antonioli D et al (2018) Predictors of recovering ambulation after hip fracture inpatient rehabilitation. BMC Geriatr. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0884-2
Padua L, Imbimbo I, Aprile I et al (2020) Cognitive reserve as a useful variable to address robotic or conventional upper limb rehabilitation treatment after stroke: a multicentre study of the Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi. Eur J Neurol 27:392–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.14090
Wong AWK, Chen C, Baum MC et al (2019) Cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning as predictors of paid employment in people with stroke, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury. Am J Occup Ther. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2019.031203
Acknowledgements
Fondazione Don Gnocchi Robotic Rehabilitation Group members: Roma (RM): Irene Aprile, Marco Germanotta, Arianna Cruciani, Simona Loreti, Stefania Lattanzi, Laura Cortellini, Dionysia Papadopoulou, Giuliana Liberti, Francesca Panzera, Piera Mitrione, Dario Ruzzi, Giuliana Rinaldi, Camilla Galli, Sabina Insalaco, Luca Padua, Fabio De Santis, Pietro Spinelli, Serena Marsan, Ilaria Bastoni, Annarita Pellegrino, Tommasangelo Petitti, Costanza Pazzaglia, Chiara Di Blasi. Milano (MI): Angelo Montesano, Anna Castagna, Cristina Grosso, Paola Ammenti, Davide Cattaneo, Luca Azzinnaro, Daniela Barbieri, Silvia Cassani, Chiara Corrini, Matteo Meotti, Riccardo Parelli, Albino Spedicato, Marta Zocchi, Marcella Loffi, Domitilla Manenti, Laura Negri, Furio Gramatica, Valerio Gower. Rovato (BS): Silvia Galeri, Fulvia Noro, Luca Medici, Romina Garattini, Federica Bariselli, Marin Luli, Vera Rota. La Spezia (SP): Manuela Diverio, Elena Giannini, Assunta Gabrielli, Barbara Deidda, Benedetta Gnetti, Paola Beatini, Giulia Giansanti, Angela Lograsso, Stefania Callegari. Firenze (FI): Francesco Converti, Assunta Pizzi, Catuscia Falsini, Antonella Romanelli, Gabriella De Luca, Federica Vannetti, Elisabetta Simoncini, Monica Martini, Elisa Peccini. Massa e Fivizzano (MS): Francesca Cecchi, Lucia Avila, Maria Assunta Gabrielli, Manuele Barilli, Emanuela Romano, Elisabetta Bertocchi, Giorgia Giannarelli, Elisabetta Lerda, Miriam Vasoli, Paolo Rossi, Valter Marsili, Brunella Tognoli, Andrea Bertolini. Sant’Angelo dei Lombardi (AV): Giovanni Vastola, Gabriele Speranza, Massimo Colella, Rita Mosca, Gaetanina Competiello, Antonietta Chiusano, Antonella Della Vecchia, Pasqualina Soriano, Michela Pagliarulo. Acerenza (PZ), Tricarico (MT): Vito Remollino, Emanuele Langone, Marcello Magliulo, Giuseppe Araneo, Lucia Galantucci, Nicola Lioi, Federico Marrazzo, Stefano Larocca, Roberta Calia, Sara Benevento, Olga Toscano, and Michele Lategana.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.
Ethics approval
Experiments were conducted with approval from the Ethics Committee of IRCCS Don Gnocchi (FDG_6.4.2016 Prot. N.8/2016CE_FDG/FC/SA).
Consent to participate
All subjects gave informed written consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cecchi, F., Germanotta, M., Macchi, C. et al. Age is negatively associated with upper limb recovery after conventional but not robotic rehabilitation in patients with stroke: a secondary analysis of a randomized-controlled trial. J Neurol 268, 474–483 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-020-10143-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-020-10143-8