Hong Xiaojuan, Cha Huanghong, Bao Xiao, Luo Jinning, Li Xiuling, Cheng Jinling, Liu Zicai
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Yuebei People's Hospital, Shaoguan, China.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shaoguan First People's Hospital, Shaoguan, China.
Front Neurol. 2025 Aug 21;16:1611565. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1611565. eCollection 2025.
In clinical practice, many patients cannot undergo inpatient rehabilitation in hospitals for extended periods due to personal financial constraints, as well as China's health insurance policy. They are often forced to terminate their rehabilitation training during the prime recovery phase. This makes tele-rehabilitation-based, home-based rehabilitation particularly important.
This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the efficacy of tele-rehabilitation-based task-oriented training (TOT) versus face-to-face task-oriented training and conventional tele-neurofacilitation techniques.
Patients who met the criteria were assigned to either the telerehabilitation group, the FTF group, or the Tele-Control group while receiving standardized rehabilitation treatment and education. Moreover, the Tele-Rehab group underwent tele-rehabilitation-based task-oriented training, the FTF group underwent face-to-face task-oriented training, and the Tele-Control Group underwent tele-rehabilitation-based conventional neurofacilitation techniques. The main evaluation indices were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity Scale (FMA-UE), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Secondary outcome indicators were Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL). All patients underwent 3 weeks of treatment.
In total, 79 participants completed the trial: Tele-rehab group ( = 23), FTF group ( = 28), and Tele-Control group ( = 28). Improvements in FMA-UE, WMFT, ARAT, and IADL were found in all three groups (<0.05). The mean change in FMA-UE was 9.4 in the Tele-rehab group, 6.4 in the FTF group, and 6.7 in the Tele-control group. The mean difference between the Tele-Rehab and FTF groups was 3.0, and the mean difference between the Tele-Rehab and Tele-Control groups was 2.7, with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval not exceeding the margin of non-inferiority. Non-inferiority was demonstrated, as the 95% CI did not cross the margin in FMA-UE difference scores before and after the intervention in the Tele-rehab group compared with the FTF group ( > 0.05), nor in the FTF group compared with the Tele-Control group before and after the intervention ( > 0.05). The 95% CI for FMA-UE improvement between Tele-rehab TOT and face-to-face TOT was [-0.81, 7.39], not exceeding the non-inferiority margin of 12.4.
Task-oriented training and remote traditional neurofacilitation techniques for tele-rehabilitation of stroke patients can enhance upper limb motor function and improve quality of daily life with comparable efficacy to face-to-face task-oriented training. Therefore, telerehabilitation is a method that is not inferior to conventional rehabilitation and deserves to be used and promoted in homebound patients.
在临床实践中,由于个人经济限制以及中国的医疗保险政策,许多患者无法在医院进行长期住院康复治疗。他们常常被迫在最佳康复阶段终止康复训练。这使得基于远程康复的居家康复尤为重要。
这项回顾性队列研究旨在比较基于远程康复的任务导向训练(TOT)与面对面任务导向训练及传统远程神经促进技术的疗效。
符合标准的患者在接受标准化康复治疗和教育的同时,被分配至远程康复组、面对面组或远程对照组。此外,远程康复组接受基于远程康复的任务导向训练,面对面组接受面对面任务导向训练,远程对照组接受基于远程康复的传统神经促进技术。主要评估指标为Fugl-Meyer上肢运动功能评定量表(FMA-UE)、Wolf运动功能测试(WMFT)和动作研究上肢测试(ARAT)。次要结局指标为日常生活活动能力量表(IADL)。所有患者均接受3周的治疗。
共有79名参与者完成试验:远程康复组(n = 23)、面对面组(n = 28)和远程对照组(n = 28)。三组在FMA-UE、WMFT、ARAT和IADL方面均有改善(P < 0.05)。远程康复组FMA-UE的平均变化为9.4,面对面组为6.4,远程对照组为6.7。远程康复组与面对面组的平均差值为3.0,远程康复组与远程对照组的平均差值为2.7,95%置信区间的上限未超过非劣效界值。证明了非劣效性,因为与面对面组相比,远程康复组干预前后FMA-UE差异评分的95%CI未越过界值(P > 0.05),与远程对照组相比,面对面组干预前后也未越过界值(P > 0.05)。远程康复TOT与面对面TOT之间FMA-UE改善的95%CI为[-0.81, 7.39],未超过12.4的非劣效界值。
针对中风患者的远程康复任务导向训练和远程传统神经促进技术可增强上肢运动功能并改善日常生活质量,其疗效与面对面任务导向训练相当。因此,远程康复是一种不劣于传统康复的方法,值得在居家患者中应用和推广。