Spinal Rehabilitation Laboratory - Neurological and Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Department A, Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS, Via Ardeatina 306 -, 00179, Rome, Italy.
Laboratory of Robotics Applied to Neurological Rehabilitation- NeuroRobot - Neurological and Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Department A, Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS, Via Ardeatina 306 -, 00179, Rome, Italy.
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Jul 23;16(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s12984-019-0558-0.
Add-on robot-mediated therapy has proven to be more effective than conventional therapy alone in post-stroke gait rehabilitation. Such robot-mediated interventions routinely use also visual biofeedback tools. A better understanding of biofeedback content effects when used for robotic locomotor training may improve the rehabilitation process and outcomes.
This randomized cross-over pilot trial aimed to address the possible impact of different biofeedback contents on patients' performance and experience during Lokomat training, by comparing a novel biofeedback based on online biological electromyographic information (EMGb) versus the commercial joint torque biofeedback (Rb) in sub-acute non ambulatory patients. 12 patients were randomized into two treatment groups, A and B, based on two different biofeedback training. For both groups, study protocol consisted of 12 Lokomat sessions, 6 for each biofeedback condition, 40 min each, 3 sessions per week of frequency. All patients performed Lokomat trainings as an add-on therapy to the conventional one that was the same for both groups and consisted of 40 min per day, 5 days per week. The primary outcome was the Modified Ashworth Spasticity Scale, and secondary outcomes included clinical, neurological, mechanical, and personal experience variables collected before and after each biofeedback training.
Lokomat training significantly improved gait/daily living activity independence and trunk control, nevertheless, different effects due to biofeedback content were remarked. EMGb was more effective to reduce spasticity and improve muscle force at the ankle, knee and hip joints. Robot data suggest that Rb induces more adaptation to robotic movements than EMGb. Furthermore, Rb was perceived less demanding than EMGb, even though patient motivation was higher for EMGb. Robot was perceived to be effective, easy to use, reliable and safe: acceptability was rated as very high by all patients.
Specific effects can be related to biofeedback content: when muscular-based information is used, a more direct effect on lower limb spasticity and muscle activity is evidenced. In a similar manner, when biofeedback treatment is based on joint torque data, a higher patient compliance effect in terms of force exerted is achieved. Subjects who underwent EMGb seemed to be more motivated than those treated with Rb.
附加机器人介导的治疗已被证明比单独的传统治疗在中风后步态康复中更有效。这种机器人介导的干预通常也使用视觉生物反馈工具。更好地理解生物反馈内容的影响,当用于机器人运动训练时,可以改善康复过程和结果。
这项随机交叉试验旨在通过比较新型基于在线生物肌电图信息的生物反馈(EMGb)与商业关节扭矩生物反馈(Rb),来研究不同生物反馈内容对亚急性非运动患者在 Lokomat 训练期间的表现和体验的可能影响。12 名患者根据两种不同的生物反馈训练分为两组,A 组和 B 组。对于两组,研究方案都包括 12 次 Lokomat 训练,每次 6 个生物反馈条件,每次 40 分钟,每周 3 次。所有患者均接受 Lokomat 训练作为常规治疗的附加治疗,两组的常规治疗相同,每天 40 分钟,每周 5 天。主要结果是改良的 Ashworth 痉挛量表,次要结果包括临床、神经、机械和个人体验变量,在每次生物反馈训练前后收集。
Lokomat 训练显著改善了步态/日常生活活动的独立性和躯干控制能力,但由于生物反馈内容的不同,效果也有所不同。EMGb 更有效地降低痉挛和改善踝关节、膝关节和髋关节的肌肉力量。机器人数据表明,Rb 比 EMGb 更能诱导对机器人运动的适应。此外,尽管患者对 EMGb 的积极性更高,但 Rb 被认为比 EMGb 要求更低。所有患者都将机器人评价为有效、易于使用、可靠和安全:接受度非常高。
特定的效果可以与生物反馈内容相关:当使用基于肌肉的信息时,下肢痉挛和肌肉活动的直接效果更为明显。同样地,当生物反馈治疗基于关节扭矩数据时,在施加力方面可以获得更高的患者依从性效果。接受 EMGb 的患者似乎比接受 Rb 的患者更有积极性。