Lemmens Ryanne J M, Timmermans Annick A A, Janssen-Potten Yvonne J M, Pulles Sanne A N T D, Geers Richard P J, Bakx Wilbert G M, Smeets Rob J E M, Seelen Henk A M
Research School CAPHRI, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Adelante, Centre of Expertise in Rehabilitation and Audiology, Hoensbroek, the Netherlands.
Research School CAPHRI, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Adelante, Centre of Expertise in Rehabilitation and Audiology, Hoensbroek, the Netherlands; BIOMED Biomedical Research Institute, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
PLoS One. 2014 May 13;9(5):e96414. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096414. eCollection 2014.
This study aims to assess the extent to which accelerometers can be used to determine the effect of robot-supported task-oriented arm-hand training, relative to task-oriented arm-hand training alone, on the actual amount of arm-hand use of chronic stroke patients in their home situation.
This single-blind randomized controlled trial included 16 chronic stroke patients, randomly allocated using blocked randomization (n = 2) to receive task-oriented robot-supported arm-hand training or task-oriented (unsupported) arm-hand training. Training lasted 8 weeks, 4 times/week, 2 × 30 min/day using the (T-)TOAT ((Technology-supported)-Task-Oriented-Arm-Training) method. The actual amount of arm-hand use, was assessed at baseline, after 8 weeks training and 6 months after training cessation. Duration of use and intensity of use of the affected arm-hand during unimanual and bimanual activities were calculated.
Duration and intensity of use of the affected arm-hand did not change significantly during and after training, with or without robot-support (i.e. duration of use of unimanual use of the affected arm-hand: median difference of -0.17% in the robot-group and -0.08% in the control group between baseline and after training cessation; intensity of the affected arm-hand: median difference of 3.95% in the robot-group and 3.32% in the control group between baseline and after training cessation). No significant between-group differences were found.
Accelerometer data did not show significant changes in actual amount of arm-hand use after task-oriented training, with or without robot-support. Next to the amount of use, discrimination between activities performed and information about quality of use of the affected arm-hand are essential to determine actual arm-hand performance.
Controlled-trials.com ISRCTN82787126.
本研究旨在评估相对于仅进行任务导向性手臂-手部训练,加速度计在确定机器人辅助的任务导向性手臂-手部训练对慢性中风患者在家中实际手臂-手部使用量的影响方面的作用程度。
这项单盲随机对照试验纳入了16名慢性中风患者,采用区组随机化(每组n = 2)随机分配,分别接受任务导向性机器人辅助手臂-手部训练或任务导向性(无辅助)手臂-手部训练。训练持续8周,每周4次,每天使用(T-)TOAT((技术支持的)任务导向性手臂训练)方法进行2×30分钟的训练。在基线、训练8周后以及训练停止6个月后评估手臂-手部的实际使用量。计算单手和双手活动中患侧手臂-手部的使用时长和使用强度。
无论有无机器人辅助,训练期间及训练后,患侧手臂-手部的使用时长和使用强度均无显著变化(即患侧手臂-手部单手使用时长:机器人组在基线至训练停止后的中位数差异为-0.17%,对照组为-0.08%;患侧手臂-手部强度:机器人组在基线至训练停止后的中位数差异为3.95%,对照组为3.32%)。未发现组间有显著差异。
无论有无机器人辅助,任务导向性训练后,加速度计数据未显示手臂-手部实际使用量有显著变化。除了使用量之外,区分所执行的活动以及有关患侧手臂-手部使用质量的信息对于确定实际手臂-手部表现至关重要。
Controlled-trials.com ISRCTN82787126 。