NeuroEngineering And medical Robotics Laboratory, NearLab, Department of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via Giuseppe Colombo 40, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Scientific Institute IRCCS E. Medea, Via Don Luigi Monza 20, 23842, Bosisio Parini, Italy.
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Jan 6;18(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00794-z.
Upper limb assistive devices can compensate for muscular weakness and empower the user in the execution of daily activities. Multiple devices have been recently proposed but there is still a lack in the scientific comparison of their efficacy.
We conducted a cross-over multi-centric randomized controlled trial to assess the functional improvement at the upper limb level of two arms supports on 36 patients with muscular dystrophy. Participants tested a passive device (i.e., Wrex by Jaeco) and a semi-active solution for gravity compensation (i.e., Armon Ayura). We evaluated devices' effectiveness with an externally-assessed scale (i.e., Performance of the Upper Limb-PUL-module), a self-perceived scale (i.e., Abilhand questionnaire), and a usability scale (i.e., System Usability Scale). Friedman's test was used to assess significant functional gain for PUL module and Abilhand questionnaire. Moreover, PUL changes were compared by means of the Friedman's test.
Most of the patients improved upper limb function with the use of arm supports (median PUL scores increase of 1-3 points). However, the effectiveness of each device was related to the level of residual ability of the end-user. Slightly impaired patients maintained the same independence without and with assistive devices, even if they reported reduced muscular fatigue for both devices. Moderately impaired patients enhanced their arm functionality with both devices, and they obtained higher improvements with the semi-active one (median PUL scores increase of 9 points). Finally, severely impaired subjects benefited only from the semi-active device (median PUL scores increase of 12 points). Inadequate strength was recognized as a barrier to passive devices. The usability, measured by the System Usability Scale, was evaluated by end-users "good" (70/100 points) for the passive, and "excellent" (80/100 points) for the semi-active device.
This study demonstrated that assistive devices can improve the quality of life of people suffering from muscular dystrophy. The use of passive devices, despite being low cost and easy to use, shows limitations in the efficacy of the assistance to daily tasks, limiting the assistance to a predefined horizontal plane. The addition of one active degree of freedom improves efficacy and usability especially for medium to severe patients. Further investigations are needed to increase the evidence on the effect of arm supports on quality of life and diseases' progression in subjects with degenerative disorders. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03127241, Registered 25th April 2017. The clinical trial was also registered as a post-market study at the Italian Ministry of Health.
上肢辅助设备可以弥补肌肉无力,帮助用户完成日常活动。最近已经提出了多种设备,但在对其疗效进行科学比较方面仍存在不足。
我们进行了一项交叉多中心随机对照试验,以评估 36 名肌营养不良症患者使用两种手臂支撑的上肢功能改善情况。参与者测试了一种被动设备(即 Jaeco 的 Wrex)和一种用于重力补偿的半主动解决方案(即 Armon Ayura)。我们使用外部评估量表(即上肢功能模块评估量表-PUL)、自我感知量表(即 Abilhand 问卷)和可用性量表(即系统可用性量表)评估设备的有效性。采用 Friedman 检验评估 PUL 模块和 Abilhand 问卷的显著功能增益。此外,还通过 Friedman 检验比较了 PUL 的变化。
大多数患者在使用手臂支撑时上肢功能得到改善(PUL 评分中位数增加 1-3 分)。然而,每种设备的有效性与终末用户的残余能力水平有关。轻度受损的患者在使用和不使用辅助设备时保持相同的独立性,尽管他们报告两种设备都减轻了肌肉疲劳。中度受损的患者使用两种设备都增强了手臂功能,使用半主动设备时获得了更高的改善(PUL 评分中位数增加 9 分)。最后,严重受损的患者仅受益于半主动设备(PUL 评分中位数增加 12 分)。无力被认为是对被动设备的障碍。终末用户使用系统可用性量表评估的可用性为“好”(70/100 分),用于被动设备,为“优秀”(80/100 分),用于半主动设备。
这项研究表明,辅助设备可以提高肌营养不良症患者的生活质量。尽管被动设备成本低且易于使用,但在辅助日常任务的效果方面存在局限性,将辅助限制在预定的水平面上。增加一个主动自由度可以提高效率和可用性,特别是对中度至重度患者。需要进一步的研究来增加关于手臂支撑对退行性疾病患者生活质量和疾病进展影响的证据。试验注册于 clinicaltrials.gov,NCT03127241,于 2017 年 4 月 25 日注册。该临床试验也在意大利卫生部注册为上市后研究。