Effects of wearable ankle robotics for stair and over-ground training on sub-acute stroke: a randomized controlled trial.
Ling-Fung Yeung, Cathy C Y Lau, Charles W K Lai and 3 others
PMID 33514393WHAT IT FOUND
Adding 20 sessions of stair and over-ground training with a powered ankle robot to standard care improved walking speed more than standard care alone.
The powered mode also allowed patients to walk faster and climb more steps during the training itself compared to a passive locking mode.
Key findings
01The powered ankle robot group showed significantly greater improvement in walking speed compared to both the passive robot group and the conventional training group.
02The passive locking robot group showed significantly better improvement in gait independence (FAC) compared to the conventional training group, but the powered robot group did not significantly differ from conventional training on this measure.
03During the training sessions, the powered robot allowed patients to walk significantly faster and cover more stairs than the passive locking robot.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was small (47 participants), which may have limited the ability to detect differences in some outcomes. The study did not control for the intensity or content of the conventional therapy received outside the robot sessions, which varied by therapist. Most participants still could not walk stairs independently without assistance after the training. The device weight (0.5 kg) was only on the affected side, which might have influenced gait patterns. The primary outcome (FAC) was not significantly different between the powered robot group and the conventional group, though the passive robot group was.
Declared interests
The study was supported by non-U.S. government funding. The authors declared no competing interests.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the powered robot is superior for all outcomes. While it improved walking speed more than the passive robot and conventional care, it did not show a significant advantage in gait independence (FAC) over conventional care, whereas the passive robot did.