Journal of International Academy of Physical Therapy Research (국제물리치료학회지)

International Academy of Physical Therapy Research (국제물리치료연구학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Approach of Robot-assisted Gait Therapy for Locomotor Recovery of Chronic Stroke Patients: a Case Report

  • Received : 2010.11.13
  • Accepted : 2011.03.04
  • Published : 2011.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this case report, we investigated the effects of robot-assisted gait therapy in a chronic stroke patient using motor assessment and gait analysis. A patient who suffered from the right hemiparesis following the left corona radiata and basal ganglia infarction received 30 minutes of robot-assisted gait therapy, 3 times a week for 4 weeks. Outcome was measured using Motoricity index(MI), Fugl-Meyer assessment(FMA), modified motor assessment scale(MMAS), isometric torque, body tissue composition, 10-meter gait speed and gait analysis. After robot-assisted gait therapy, the patient showed improvement in motor functions measured by MI, FMA, MMAS, isometric torque, skeletal muscle mass, 10-meter gait speed. In gait analysis, cadence, single support time, double support time, step length, walking speed improvement in after robot-assisted gait therapy. The results of this study showed that robot-assisted gait therapy is considered to facilitate locomotor recovery of the chronic hemiparetic stroke patient.

Keywords

References

  1. Schmidt H, Werner C, Bernhardt R, Hesse S, Kruger J. Gait rehabilitation machines based on programmable footplates. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2007; 4(2).
  2. Asanuma H, Keller A. Neuronal mechanisms of motor learning in mammals. Neuroreport 1991; 2: 217-224. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199105000-00001
  3. Behrman AL, Harkema SJ. Locomotor training after human spinal cord injury: a series of case studies. Phys Ther 2000; 80: 688-700.
  4. Dobkin BH. Functional rewiring of brain and spinal cord after injury: the three Rs of neural repair and neurological rehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol 2000; 13: 655-659. https://doi.org/10.1097/00019052-200012000-00007
  5. Werning A, Muller S. Laufband locomotion with body weight support improved walking in persons with severe spinal cord injuries. Paraplegia 1992; 30: 229-238. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.1992.61
  6. Hesse S, Bertelt C, Jahnke MT, Schaffrin A, Baake P, Malezic M, Mauritz KH. Treadmill training with partial body weight support as compared to physiotherapy in non-ambulatory hemiparetic patients. Stroke 1995; 26: 976-981. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.26.6.976
  7. Hesse S, Konrad M, Uhlenbrock D. Treadmill walking with partial body weight support versus floor walking in hemiparetic subject. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 421-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90279-4
  8. Hicks AL, Adams MM, Martin K, Giangregorio L, Latimer A, Phillips SM, McCartney N. Long-term body-weight-supported treadmill training and subsequent follow-up in person with chronic SCI: effects on functional walking ability and measures of subjective well-being. Spinal Cord 2005; 43: 291-298. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101710
  9. Moseley AM, Stark A, Cameron ID, Pollock A. Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; CD002840.
  10. Dietz V, Harkema SJ. Locomotor activity in spinal cord injured persons. J Appl Physiol 2004; 96: 1954-1960. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00942.2003
  11. Van Peppen RP, Kwakkel G, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hendriks HJ, Van der Wess PJ, Dekker J. The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what`s the evidence? Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 833-862. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215504cr843oa
  12. Husemann B, Muller 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: 349-354. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000254607.48765.cb
  13. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. Reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther 1984; 64: 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/64.1.35
  14. Garraway WM, Akhtar AJ., Prescott RJ, Hockey L. Management of acute stroke in the elderly: preliminary results of a controlled trial. Br Med J 1980; 280: 1040-1043. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.280.6220.1040
  15. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physicl performance. Scand J Rehab Med 1975; 7: 13-31.
  16. Carr J, Shepherd R. Modified motor assessment scale. Phys Ther 1989; 69: 780. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/69.9.780
  17. Krakauer JW. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitations. Curr Opin Neurol 2006; 19: 84-90. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wco.0000200544.29915.cc
  18. Plautz EJ, Milliken GW, Nudo RJ. Effects of repetitive motor training on movements representations in adult squirrel monkeys: role of use versus learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2000; 74: 27-55. https://doi.org/10.1006/nlme.1999.3934
  19. Richards CL, Malouin F, Dean C. Gait in stroke: assessment and rehabilitation. Clin Geriatr Med 1999; 15: 833-855.
  20. Hesse S, Malezic M, Schaffrin A, Mauritz KH. Restoration of gait by combined treadmill training and multichannel electrical stimulation in non-ambulatory hemiparetic patients. Scand J Rehabil Med 1995; 27: 199-204.
  21. Visintin M, Barbeau H, Korner-Bitensky N, Mayo NE. A new approach to retrain gait in stroke patients through body weight support and treadmill stimulation. Stroke 1998; 29: 1122-1128. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.29.6.1122
  22. Mayr A, Kofler M, Quirbach E, Matzak H, Frohlich K, Saltuari L. Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study of gait rehabilitation in stroke patients using the Lokomat gait orthosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21: 307-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968307300697
  23. Bensoussan L, Mesure S, Viton JM, Delarque A. Kinematic and kinetic asymmetries in hemiplegic patients gait initiation patterns. J Rehabil Med 2006; 38: 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/16501970600694859