Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy on Upper Limb Recovery After Stroke: A Systematic Review

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair - Tập 22 Số 2 - Trang 111-121 - 2008
Gert Kwakkel1, Boudewijn J. Kollen2, Hermano Igo Krebs3
1Department Rehabilitation Medicine and Research Institute MOVE, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Department Rehabilitation Medicine, Rudolf Magnus Institute of NeuroScience, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands,
2Research Bureau, Isala klinieken, Zwolle, The Netherlands
3Mechanical Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Department of Neurology and Neuroscience, Burke Institute of Medical Research, Weill Medical College, Cornell University, White Plains, New York, Department of Neurology, University of Maryland, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

Tóm tắt

Objective. The aim of the study was to present a systematic review of studies that investigate the effects of robot-assisted therapy on motor and functional recovery in patients with stroke. Methods. A database of articles published up to October 2006 was compiled using the following Medline key words: cerebral vascular accident, cerebral vascular disorders, stroke, paresis, hemiplegia, upper extremity, arm, and robot. References listed in relevant publications were also screened. Studies that satisfied the following selection criteria were included: (1) patients were diagnosed with cerebral vascular accident; (2) effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb were investigated; (3) the outcome was measured in terms of motor and/or functional recovery of the upper paretic limb; and (4) the study was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). For each outcome measure, the estimated effect size (ES) and the summary effect size (SES) expressed in standard deviation units (SDU) were calculated for motor recovery and functional ability (activities of daily living [ADLs]) using fixed and random effect models. Ten studies, involving 218 patients, were included in the synthesis. Their methodological quality ranged from 4 to 8 on a (maximum) 10-point scale. Results. Meta-analysis showed a nonsignificant heterogeneous SES in terms of upper limb motor recovery. Sensitivity analysis of studies involving only shoulder-elbow robotics subsequently demonstrated a significant homogeneous SES for motor recovery of the upper paretic limb. No significant SES was observed for functional ability (ADL). Conclusion. As a result of marked heterogeneity in studies between distal and proximal arm robotics, no overall significant effect in favor of robot-assisted therapy was found in the present meta-analysis. However, subsequent sensitivity analysis showed a significant improvement in upper limb motor function after stroke for upper arm robotics. No significant improvement was found in ADL function. However, the administered ADL scales in the reviewed studies fail to adequately reflect recovery of the paretic upper limb, whereas valid instruments that measure outcome of dexterity of the paretic arm and hand are mostly absent in selected studies. Future research into the effects of robot-assisted therapy should therefore distinguish between upper and lower robotics arm training and concentrate on kinematical analysis to differentiate between genuine upper limb motor recovery and functional recovery due to compensation strategies by proximal control of the trunk and upper limb.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1161/01.STR.0000015031.57955.D1

10.1161/01.STR.0000087172.16305.CD

10.1191/0269215504cr843oa

Kwakkel G., 2004, Restor Neurol Neurosci, 22, 281

10.1109/86.662623

Krebs HI, 2000, J Rehabil Res Dev, 37, 639

Reinkensmeyer DJ, 2000, J Rehabil Res Dev, 37, 653

Burgar CG, 2000, J Rehabil Res Dev, 37, 663

10.1109/TNSRE.2004.827225

10.1682/JRRD.2005.02.0048

Basmajian JV, 1987, Arch Phys Med Rehabil., 68, 276

10.1053/apmr.2001.33101

Logigian MK, 1983, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 64, 364

Wagenaar RC, 1990, Scand J Rehabil Med, 22, 1

10.1093/ptj/69.9.719

10.1016/0022-510X(95)00003-K

10.1093/ptj/86.6.817

10.1016/S1474-4422(04)00851-8

10.1097/00019052-200312000-00010

10.1310/RYT5-62N4-CTVX-8JTE

Hogan N., 2004, Restor Neurol Neuorsci, 22, 349

10.1310/9KFM-KF81-P9A4-5WW0

Platz T., 2003, Nervenarzt, 74, 841, 10.1007/s00115-003-1549-7

10.1007/BF02345116

Volpe BT, 2001, Neurol, 14, 745

10.1109/TNSRE.2005.843443

10.1109/TNSRE.2005.848352

10.1109/86.769416

10.1109/TNSRE.2005.850423

10.1053/apmr.2003.50110

10.1016/j.apmr.2003.11.028

10.1212/01.WNL.0000095963.00970.68

10.1682/JRRD.2004.12.0153

10.1109/TNSRE.2005.850428

10.1186/1743-0003-1-5

10.1073/pnas.96.8.4645

10.1023/A:1024494031121

10.1682/JRRD.2004.06.0068

10.1016/S0031-9384(02)00914-9

10.1007/s10514-005-4749-0

10.1007/s00221-005-0097-8

10.1114/1.233

10.1109/TNSRE.2002.1031978

10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-18-08297.2002

Stein J., 2004, Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 85, 1106, 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.11.028

10.1007/s00221-002-1340-1

10.1212/WNL.53.8.1874

10.1001/archneur.1997.00550160075019

10.1177/0888439004267434

10.1161/01.STR.0000177865.37334.ce

Kahn LE, Averbuch M., Rymer WZ, Reinkensmeyer J. Comparison of robot-assisted reaching to free reaching in promoting recovery from chronic stroke. In: Mokhtari M, ed. Integration of Assistive Technology in the Information Age. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press; 2001:39-44.

10.1186/1743-0003-3-1

10.1682/JRRD.2005.02.0044

10.1212/WNL.54.10.1938

10.1093/ptj/73.7.447

10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-18-08297.2002

10.1093/brain/123.5.940

10.1161/01.STR.0000238594.91938.1e

10.1080/165019701750165916

10.1001/jama.296.17.2095

10.1161/01.STR.24.1.58

Pollock AS, 2000, Clin Rehabil, 14

10.1080/09638280500534861

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Tập 22 Số 2

111-121

Thông tin tác giả