Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2015.22.2.030

The Effects of Robot-Assisted Gait Training for the Patient With Post Stroke: A Meta-Analysis  

Park, So-Yeon (Dept. of Physical Therapy, College of Health Sciences, Sangji University)
Publication Information
Physical Therapy Korea / v.22, no.2, 2015 , pp. 30-40 More about this Journal
Abstract
Robot-assisted rehabilitation therapy has been used to increase physical function in post-stroke patients. The aim of this meta-analysis was to identify whether robot-assisted gait training can improve patients' functional abilities. A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Academic Search Premier (ASP), ScienceDirect, Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), Research Information Sharing Service (RISS), Korea National Library, and the Korean Medical Database up to April, 2014. Fifteen eligible studies researched the effects of robot-assisted gait training to a control group. All outcome measures were classified by International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) domains (body function and structures, activity, and participation) and were pooled for calculating the effect size. The overall effect size of the robot-assisted gait training was .356 [95% confidence interval (CI): .186~.526]. When the effect was compared by the type of electromechanical robot, Gait Trainer (GT) (.471, 95% CI: .320~.621) showed more effective than Lokomat (.169, 95% CI: .063~.275). In addition, acute stroke patients showed more improvement than others. Although robot-assisted gait training may improve function, but there is no scientific evidence about the appropriate treatment time for one session or the appropriate duration of treatment. Additional researchers are needed to include more well-designed trials in order to resolve these uncertainties.
Keywords
Gait disorder; Meta-analysis; Robot-assisted training; Stroke;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Chang WH, Kim MS, Huh JP, et al. Effects of ro bot-assisted gait training on cardiopulmonary fitness in subacute stroke patients: A randomized controlled study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26(4):318-324. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1545968311408916   DOI
2 Chang WH, Kim YH. Robot-assisted therapy in stroke rehabilitation. J Stroke. 2013;15(3):174-181.   DOI
3 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ, Routledge Academic, 1988:24-26.
4 Cooper H. Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. 4th ed. CA, SAGE Publication Inc., 2010:111-113.
5 Cooper H, Hedges LV. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. CA, Russell Sage Foundation, 1994: 301-322.
6 Dias D, Lains J, Pereira A, et al. Can we improve gait skills in chronic hemiplegics? A randomised control trial with gait trainer. Eura Medicophys. 2007;43(4):499-504.
7 Duval S, Tweedie R. A nonparametric 'trim and fill' method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2000;95(449):89-98.
8 Edmans JA, Gladman JR, Cobb S, et al. Validity of a virtual environment for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2006;37(11):2770-2775.   DOI
9 Feigin VL, Lawes CM, Bennett DA, et al. Stroke epidemiology: A review of population-based studies of incidence, prevalence, and case-fatality in the late 20th century. Lancet Neurol. 2003;2(1):43-53.   DOI
10 Fisher S, Lucas L, Thrasher TA. Robot-assisted gait training for patients with hemiparesis due to stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2011;18(3):269-276. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1310/tsr1803-269   DOI
11 Geroin C, Mazzoleni S, Smania N, et al. Systematic review of outcome measures of walking training using electromechanical and robotic devices in patients with stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45(10): 987-996. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1234   DOI
12 Geroin C, Picelli A, Munari D, et al. Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robotassisted gait training in patients with chronic stroke: A preliminary comparison. Clin Rehabil. 2011;25(6):537-548. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269215510389497   DOI
13 Hidler J, Nichols D, Pelliccio M, et al. Multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of the lokomat in subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(1):5-13. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1177/1545968308326632   DOI
14 Hornby TG, Campbell DD, Kahn JH, et al. Enhanced gait-related improvements after therapist- versus robotic-assisted locomotor training in subjects with chronic stroke: A randomized controlled study. Stroke. 2008;39(6):1786-1792. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.504779   DOI
15 Hsieh YW, Lin KC, Wu CY, et al. Predicting clinically significant changes in motor and functional outcomes after robot-assisted stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(2):316-321. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.09.018   DOI
16 Husemann B, Muller F, Krewer C, et al. 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):349-354.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Hwang S, Easy to Understand the Meta-Analysis. Seoul, Hakjisa, 2014:241-254.
18 Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011;377(9778):1693-1702. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Mayr A, Kofler M, Quirbach E, et al. Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study of gait rehabilitation in stroke patients using the lokomat gait orthosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007; 21(4):307-314.   DOI
20 Mehrholz J, Elsner B, Werner C, et al. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD006185. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub3   DOI
21 Mehrholz J, Werner C, Kugler J, et al. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (4):CD006185.
22 Morone G, Bragoni M, Iosa M, et al. Who may benefit from robotic-assisted gait training? A randomized clinical trial in patients with subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(7):636-644. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1177/1545968311401034   DOI
23 Morone G, Iosa M, Bragoni M, et al. Who may have durable benefit from robotic gait training? A 2-year follow-up randomized controlled trial in patients with subacute stroke. Stroke. 2012; 43(4):1140-1142. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.638148   DOI
24 Ng MF, Tong RK, Li LS. A pilot study of randomized clinical controlled trial of gait training in subacute stroke patients with partial bodyweight support electromechanical gait trainer and functional electrical stimulation: Six-month follow-up. Stroke. 2008;39(1):154-160.   DOI
25 Patel MD, Tilling K, Lawrence E, et al. Relationships between long-term stroke disability, handicap and health-related quality of life. Age Ageing. 2006;35(3):273-279.   DOI
26 Pennycott A, Wyss D, Vallery H, et al. Towards more effective robotic gait training for stroke rehabilitation: A review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012; 9:65. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-9-65   DOI
27 Peurala SH, Tarkka IM, Pitkanen K, et al. The effectiveness of body weight-supported gait training and floor walking in patients with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(8): 1557-1564.   DOI
28 Physiotherpy Evidence Database. PEDro scale [Internet]. Sydney, 1999 Jun 21 [Cited 2015 Jan 5]. Avaliable from: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
29 Pohl M, Werner C, Holzgraefe M, et al. Repetitive locomotor training and physiotherapy improve walking and basic activities of daily living after stroke: A single-blind, randomized multicentre trial (DEutsche GAngtrainerStudie, DEGAS). Clin Rehabil. 2007;21(1):17-27.   DOI
30 Poli P, Morone G, Rosati G, et al. Robotic technologies and rehabilitation: New tools for stroke patients' therapy. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013: 153872. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/153872   DOI
31 Richardson KM, Rothstein HR. Effects of occupational stress management intervention programs: A meta-analysis. J Occup Health Psychol. 2008;13(1):69-93. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.13.1.69   DOI
32 Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2011 update: A report from the american heart association. Circulation. 2011;123(4):e18-e209. http://www. dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182009701   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Schwartz I, Sajin A, Fisher I, et al. The effectiveness of locomotor therapy using robotic-assisted gait training in subacute stroke patients: A randomized controlled trial. PM&R. 2009;1(6): 516-523. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2009.03.009   DOI
34 Truelsen T, Piechowski-Jozwiak B, Bonita R, et al. Stroke incidence and prevalence in europe: A review of available data. Eur J Neurol. 2006; 13(6):581-598.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Tong RK, Ng MF, Li LS. Effectiveness of gait training using an electromechanical gait trainer, with and without functional electric stimulation, in subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(10): 1298-1304.   DOI   ScienceOn
36 Westlake KP, Patten C. Pilot study of lokomat versus manual-assisted treadmill training for locomotor recovery post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;6:18. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-6-18   DOI