Effects of robot-assisted gait training in stroke patients

Authors

  • Juliana Morales Ronchi Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Medicina
  • Pedro Cláudio Gonsales de Castro Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Medicina
  • Maria Cecília dos Santos Moreira Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Medicina

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5935/0104-7795.20150007

Keywords:

Stroke, Gait, Robotics, Rehabilitation

Abstract

Stroke patients present significant gait deficits due to the complexity of their disabilities. Robot-assisted gait training (RGT), in addition to reducing the therapist’s physical overload, ensures a simpler and safer environment for gait training, in which symmetrical and constant movement patterns of the lower limbs can be developed at higher speeds, and allows for a longer therapy session. Despite an increasing use of this equipment in rehabilitation, there is a lack of knowledge about the effects that can be promoted in paretic gait, as well as the training protocols applied to achieve them. Objective: Thus, this study aimed to assess the current evidence for efficacy of RGT in post-stroke individuals, with emphasis on gait performance. Method: For this, a survey of studies published in the last 10 years (2003-2013) with the terms “stroke” and “gait” and “robotics” was conducted in the PubMed, MedLine and LILACS databases. Results: Five studies were selected that met the inclusion criteria, including using the Lokomat robotic device (Hocoma, Volketswil) for gait training in post-stroke patients. The results obtained for each study considered the gains in linear gait parameters (speed and distance traveled) promoted by robotic therapy compared to conventional therapy. Conclusion: The data suggest that the use of robotic therapy in gait rehabilitation of post-stroke patients does not produce any more gains than those obtained with conventional therapy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Koenig A, Omlin X, Bergmann J, Zimmerli L, Bolliger M, Müller F, et al. Controlling patient participation during robot-assisted gait training. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011;8:14. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-8-14

Coenen P, van Werven G, van Nunen MP, Van Dieën JH, Gerrits KH, Janssen TW. Robot-assisted walking vs overground walking in stroke patients: an evaluation of muscle activity. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(4):331-7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0954

Husemann B, Müller F, Krewer C, Heller S, Koenig E. Effects of locomotion training with assistance of a robot-driven gait orthosis in hemiparetic patients after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Stroke. 2007;38(2):349-54. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000254607.48765.cb

Hidler J, Nichols D, Pelliccio M, Brady K, Campbell DD, Kahn JH, et al. Multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Lokomat in subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(1):5-13. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1545968308326632

Mayr A, Kofler M, Quirbach E, Matzak H, Fröhlich K, Saltuari L. Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study of gait rehabilitation in stroke patients using the Lokomat gait orthosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21(4):307-14. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1545968307300697

Hornby TG, Campbell DD, Kahn JH, Demott T, Moore JL, Roth HR. Enhanced gait-related improvements after therapist - versus robotic-assisted locomotor training in subjects with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled study. Stroke. 2008;39(6):1786-92. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.504779

Colombo G. The "Lokomat"- a driven ambulatory orthosis. Med Orth Tech. 2000;6:178-81.

Duysens J, Clarac F, Cruse H. Load-regulating mechanisms in gait and posture: comparative aspects. Physiol Rev. 2000;80(1):83-133.

Van de Crommert HW, Mulder T, Duysens J. Neural control of locomotion: sensory control of the central pattern generator and its relation to treadmill training. Gait Posture. 1998;7(3):251-263. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6362(98)00010-1

Wernig A, Müller S. Laufband locomotion with body weight support improved walking in persons with severe spinal cord injuries. Paraplegia. 1992;30(4):229-38. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sc.1992.61

Thelen E, Ulrich BD, Niles D. Bilateral coordination in human infants: stepping on a split-belt treadmill. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1987;13(3):405-10. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.13.3.405

Hesse S, Werner C, Bardeleben A, Barbeau H. Body weight-supported treadmill training after stroke. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2001;3(4):287-94. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11883-001-0021-z

Jackson D, Thornton H, Turner-Stokes L. Can young severely disabled stroke patients regain the ability to walk independently more than three months post stroke? Clin Rehabil. 2000;14(5):538-47.

Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1-12.

Lewek MD, Cruz TH, Moore JL, Roth HR, Dhaher YY, Hornby TG. Allowing intralimb kinematic variability during locomotor training poststroke improves kinematic consistency: a subgroup analysis from a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther. 2009;89(8):829-39. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080180

Published

2015-03-09

Issue

Section

Review Article

How to Cite

1.
Ronchi JM, Castro PCG de, Moreira MC dos S. Effects of robot-assisted gait training in stroke patients. Acta Fisiátr. [Internet]. 2015 Mar. 9 [cited 2024 May 18];22(1):34-8. Available from: https://revistas.usp.br/actafisiatrica/article/view/103899