Background: End-effector robots allow intensive gait training in stroke subjects and promote a successful rehabilitation. A comparison between conventional and end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) in subacute stroke patients is needed. Objective: To investigate the efficacy of end-effector RAGT in subacute stroke patients. Methods: Twenty-six subacute stroke patients were divided into two group: 14 patients performed RAGT (RG); 12 patients performed conventional gait training (CG). Clinical assessment and gait analysis were performed at the beginning (T0) and at the end (T1) of the rehabilitation. Results: The RG revealed a significant improvement in body function, activities, participation scales, and in the distance measured with the 6 MWT. The affected lower limb's spasticity significantly decreased at T1. In gait analysis, RG showed significantly increases in many parameters. The CG significantly improved clinical assessments but showed no significant changes in gait parameters. Statistically significant differences between RG and CG were found in MRC-HE, TCT, 10 MWT, 6 MWT, and TUG. No significant difference between groups was registered in gait kinematics. Conclusions: Both rehabilitation treatments produce promising effects in subacute stroke patients. RAGT device offers a more intensive, controlled, and physiological gait training and significantly improved deambulation.

Aprile, I., Iacovelli, C., Goffredo, M., Cruciani, A., Galli, M., Simbolotti, C., Pecchioli, C., Padua, L., Galafate, D., Pournajaf, S., Franceschini, M., Efficacy of end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training in subacute stroke patients: Clinical and gait outcomes from a pilot bi-centre study., <<NEUROREHABILITATION>>, 2; 2019 (45): 201-212. [doi:10.3233/NRE-192778] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/167386]

Efficacy of end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training in subacute stroke patients: Clinical and gait outcomes from a pilot bi-centre study.

Aprile, I;Iacovelli, C;Padua, L;
2020

Abstract

Background: End-effector robots allow intensive gait training in stroke subjects and promote a successful rehabilitation. A comparison between conventional and end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) in subacute stroke patients is needed. Objective: To investigate the efficacy of end-effector RAGT in subacute stroke patients. Methods: Twenty-six subacute stroke patients were divided into two group: 14 patients performed RAGT (RG); 12 patients performed conventional gait training (CG). Clinical assessment and gait analysis were performed at the beginning (T0) and at the end (T1) of the rehabilitation. Results: The RG revealed a significant improvement in body function, activities, participation scales, and in the distance measured with the 6 MWT. The affected lower limb's spasticity significantly decreased at T1. In gait analysis, RG showed significantly increases in many parameters. The CG significantly improved clinical assessments but showed no significant changes in gait parameters. Statistically significant differences between RG and CG were found in MRC-HE, TCT, 10 MWT, 6 MWT, and TUG. No significant difference between groups was registered in gait kinematics. Conclusions: Both rehabilitation treatments produce promising effects in subacute stroke patients. RAGT device offers a more intensive, controlled, and physiological gait training and significantly improved deambulation.
Inglese
Aprile, I., Iacovelli, C., Goffredo, M., Cruciani, A., Galli, M., Simbolotti, C., Pecchioli, C., Padua, L., Galafate, D., Pournajaf, S., Franceschini, M., Efficacy of end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training in subacute stroke patients: Clinical and gait outcomes from a pilot bi-centre study., <<NEUROREHABILITATION>>, 2; 2019 (45): 201-212. [doi:10.3233/NRE-192778] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/167386]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/10807/167386
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact