PTOTPilotJournal of physical therapy science2018

Upper limb robotic rehabilitation for chronic stroke survivors: a single-group preliminary study.

Ki Hun Cho, Mi-Ran Hong, Won-Kyung Song

PMID 29706710

WHAT IT FOUND

After six weeks of assist-as-needed arm robot training, 21 high-functioning chronic stroke survivors had higher upper limb scores and faster reaching.

No control group was used, so the robot alone cannot be credited.

Key findings

01After six weeks, upper limb function scores increased: FMA from 47.90 to 51.52 points, BBT from 15.00 to 16.85 points, and ARAT from 37.52 to 41.14 points.

02Activities of daily living performance increased from 94.95 to 96.38 points on the Modified Barthel Index.

03Reaching speed increased in all six target directions, for example from 0.29 to 0.47 m/s for target 1 and from 0.14 to 0.33 m/s for target 5.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

There was no control group, so the authors state improvement cannot be attributed to the robot with certainty. Participants were high-functioning chronic stroke survivors, so results may not apply to people with more severe movement loss. The study measured outcomes only at baseline and after six weeks, so longer-term change is not shown. The training included an arm robot, assist-as-needed help, visual and auditory feedback, a trunk belt, and supervision by assistants, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.

Declared interests

The work was supported by the National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that the robot alone caused the gains. The training also included visual and auditory feedback, a trunk belt, and supervision by assistants, and there was no control group, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.

Read it on PubMed →