Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does robot-assisted gait training improve mobility, activities of daily living and quality of life in stroke? A single-blinded, randomized controlled trial

  • Original article
  • Published:
Acta Neurologica Belgica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) on mobility, activities of daily living (ADLs), and quality of life (QoL) in stroke rehabilitation. Fifty-one stroke patients randomly assigned to Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 received conventional training (CT) plus RAGT, CT, and RAGT, respectively. The training duration was for 6 weeks. The primary outcome measures were the Barthel Index (BI), Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL), 6-Minute Walk Test (6-MWT), and Stair Climbing Test (SCT). The secondary outcomes were Fugl Meyer Assessment-Lower Extremity (FMA-LE), Comfortable 10-m Walk Test (CWT), Fast 10-m Walk Test (FWT), and Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE). The mean change in all the primary [BI (p = 0.001), 6-MWT (p = 0.001), SS-QOL (p < 0.0001), and SCT (p = 0.004)] and except the FWT (p = 0.354) all the other secondary outcomes [FMA-LE (p = 0.049), CWT (p = 0.025) and RPE (p = 0.023)] improved significantly between the three groups. In the subgroup analysis, BI, 6-MWT, SS-QOL, and SCT improved significantly in Group 1 compared to Group 2 and Group 3 (p < 0.016). However, FMA-LE, CWT, and the RPE significantly improved in Group 1 compared to Group 2 and, also, only CWT improved significantly in Group 1 compared to Group 3 (p = 0.011). In a subgroup analysis of the primary and secondary outcome measures, there were no significant differences in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (p > 0.05). While combined training leads to more improvement in mobility, ADLs, and QoL, CT showed a similar improvement compared to the RAGT in stroke patients.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Belda-Lois JM, Mena-del Horno S, Bermejo-Bosch I, Moreno JC, Pons JL, Farina D, Iosa M, Molinari M, Tamburella F, Ramos A (2011) Rehabilitation of gait after stroke: a review towards a top-down approach. J Neuroeng Rehabil 8(1):66

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Dombovy ML, Basford JR, Whisnant JP, Bergstralh EJ (1987) Disability and use of rehabilitation services following stroke in Rochester, Minnesota, 1975–1979. Stroke 18(5):830–836

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schaechter JD (2004) Motor rehabilitation and brain plasticity after hemiparetic stroke. Prog Neurobiol 73(1):61–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schwartz I, Meiner Z (2015) Robotic-assisted gait training in neurological patients: who may benefit? Ann Biomed Eng 43(5):1260–1269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Calabro RS, Cacciola A, Berte F, Manuli A, Leo A, Bramanti A, Naro A, Milardi D, Bramanti P (2016) Robotic gait rehabilitation and substitution devices in neurological disorders: where are we now? Neurol Sci 37(4):503–514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mao YR, Lo WL, Lin Q, Li L, Xiao X, Raghavan P, Huang DF (2015) The effect of body weight support treadmill training on gait recovery, proximal lower limb motor pattern, and balance in patients with subacute stroke. Biomed Res Int 2015:175719. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/175719

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mehrholz J, Thomas S, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M, Elsner B (2017) Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke: a major update of the evidence. Stroke 10(5):CD006185. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.117.018018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tedla JS, Dixit S, Gular K, Abohashrh M (2019) Robotic-assisted gait training effect on function and gait speed in subacute and chronic stroke population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Neurol 81(3–4):103–111. https://doi.org/10.1159/000500747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. MacKay-Lyons M, McDonald A, Matheson J, Eskes G, Klus M-A (2013) Dual effects of body-weight supported treadmill training on cardiovascular fitness and walking ability early after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 27(7):644–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Combs SA, Dugan EL, Passmore M, Riesner C, Whipker D, Yingling E, Curtis AB (2010) Balance, balance confidence, and health-related quality of life in persons with chronic stroke after body weight–supported treadmill training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91(12):1914–1919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hidler J, Nichols D, Pelliccio M, Brady K, Campbell DD, Kahn JH, Hornby TG (2009) Multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Lokomat in subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 23(1):5–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mackay-Lyons MJ, Makrides L (2002) Exercise capacity early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83(12):1697–1702. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.36395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lam T, Luttmann K, Houldin A, Chan C (2009) Treadmill-based locomotor training with leg weights to enhance functional ambulation in people with chronic stroke: a pilot study. J Neurol Phys Ther 33(3):129–135. https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0b013e3181b57de5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Taveggia G, Borboni A, Mulé C, Villafañe JH, Negrini S (2016) Conflicting results of robot-assisted versus usual gait training during postacute rehabilitation of stroke patients: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Rehabil Res 39(1):29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dundar U, Toktas H, Solak O, Ulasli A, Eroglu S (2014) A comparative study of conventional physiotherapy versus robotic training combined with physiotherapy in patients with stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 21(6):453–461

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fulk GD, Echternach JL, Nof L, O'Sullivan S (2008) Clinometric properties of the six-minute walk test in individuals undergoing rehabilitation poststroke. Physiother Theory Pract 24(3):195–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593980701588284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lennon DB, Ashburn AS (2001) Physiotherapy based on the Bobath concept in stroke rehabilitation: a survey within the UK. Disabil Rehabil 23(6):254–262

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwartz I, Sajin A, Fisher I, Neeb M, Shochina M, Katz-Leurer M, Meiner Z (2009) The effectiveness of locomotor therapy using robotic-assisted gait training in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. PM&R 1(6):516–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chang WH, Kim MS, Huh JP, Lee PK, Kim Y-H (2012) Effects of robot-assisted gait training on cardiopulmonary fitness in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 26(4):318–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wade D, Collin C (1988) The Barthel ADL index: a standard measure of physical disability? Int Disabil Stud 10(2):64–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kucukdeveci A, Yavuzer G, Tennant A, Suldur N, Sonel B, Arasil T (2000) Adaptation of the modified Barthel Index for use in physical medicine and rehabilitation in Turkey. Scand J Rehabil Med 32(2):87–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Silva SM, Correa FI, Faria CD, Correa JC (2013) Comparison of quality-of-life instruments for assessing the participation after stroke based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Braz J phys Ther 17(5):470–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hakverdioğlu Yönt G, Khorshid L (2012) Turkish version of the stroke-specific quality of life scale. Int Nurs Rev 59(2):274–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Enright PL (2003) The six-minute walk test. Respir Care 48(8):783–785

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wade DT (1992) Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol Neurosurg 5(5):682–686

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 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(1):13–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Flansbjer UB, Holmback AM, Downham D, Patten C, Lexell J (2005) Reliability of gait performance tests in men and women with hemiparesis after stroke. J Rehabil Med 37(2):75–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/16501970410017215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Borg G (1970) Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J Rehabil Med 2:92–98

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim H-Y (2015) Statistical notes for clinical researchers: post-hoc multiple comparisons. Restor Dent Endod 40(2):172–176. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2015.40.2.172

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 27(3 Suppl):S178–S189

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Combs-Miller SA, Kalpathi Parameswaran A, Colburn D, Ertel T, Harmeyer A, Tucker L, Schmid AA (2014) Body weight-supported treadmill training vs. overground walking training for persons with chronic stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 28(9):873–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mayr A, Kofler M, Quirbach E, Matzak H, Fröhlich K, Saltuari L (2007) Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study of gait rehabilitation in stroke patients using the Lokomat gait orthosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 21(4):307–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Franceschini M, Carda S, Agosti M, Antenucci R, Malgrati D, Cisari C (2009) Walking after stroke: what does treadmill training with body weight support add to overground gait training in patients early after stroke? A single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Stroke 40(9):3079–3085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hornby TG, Campbell DD, Kahn JH, Demott T, Moore JL, Roth HR (2008) Enhanced gait-related improvements after therapist-versus robotic-assisted locomotor training in subjects with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled study. Stroke 39(6):1786–1792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pohl M, Werner C, Holzgraefe M, Kroczek G, Wingendorf I, Hoölig G, Koch R, Hesse S (2007) Repetitive locomotor training and physiotherapy improve walking and basic activities of daily living after stroke: a single-blind, randomized multicentre trial (DEutsche GAngtrainerStudie, DEGAS). Clin Rehabil 21(1):17–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Geroin C, Mazzoleni S, Smania N, Gandolfi M, Bonaiuti D, Gasperini G, Munari D, Sale P, Waldner A, Spidalieri R (2013) Systematic review of outcome measures of walking training using electromechanical and robotic devices in patients with stroke. J Rehabil Med 45(10):987–996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ada L, Dean CM, Hall JM, Bampton J, Crompton S (2003) A treadmill and overground walking program improves walking in persons residing in the community after stroke: a placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84(10):1486–1491. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00349-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Meryem Boujdid for her editing support. We thank the physical therapist at the rehabilitation hospital for performing the conventional training

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

  1. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Division of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey

    Rustem Mustafaoglu, Ipek Yeldan & Ela Tarakci

  2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Belgin Erhan

  3. Istanbul Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Berrin Gunduz

Authors
  1. Rustem Mustafaoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Belgin Erhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ipek Yeldan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Berrin Gunduz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ela Tarakci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ipek Yeldan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest, and they have nothing to disclose.

Ethical approval

The University Institutional Review Board approved the study.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mustafaoglu, R., Erhan, B., Yeldan, I. et al. Does robot-assisted gait training improve mobility, activities of daily living and quality of life in stroke? A single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Acta Neurol Belg 120, 335–344 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-020-01276-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-020-01276-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation