This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Casadio, M. Articles by Sanguineti, V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Casadio, M. Articles by Sanguineti, V. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A proof of concept study for the integration of robot therapy with physiotherapy in the treatment of stroke patients

Neurolab, Department of Informatics, Systems and Telematics (DIST), University of Genova

Psiche Giannoni

ART Education and Rehabilitation Center, Genova

Pietro Morasso

Neurolab, Department of Informatics, Systems and Telematics (DIST), University of Genova, Italy, pietro.morasso{at}unige.it

Vittorio Sanguineti

Neurolab, Department of Informatics, Systems and Telematics (DIST), University of Genova, Italy

Objective: To carry out a proof of concept study for integrating robot therapy with physiotherapy in the treatment of stroke patients.

Design: A simple and `gentle' paradigm of robot—patient interaction was designed in order to foster the re-emergence of smooth, active control patterns in coordinated shoulder/elbow reaching movements. A haptic robot was programmed according to a strategy of minimal, progressively reduced assistance, with a double representation of targets: (i) visual (circles on a screen) and (ii) haptic (robot-generated force fields). The protocol included trials with and without vision, in order to emphasize the role of proprioceptive feedback. The training paradigm included 10 sessions and more than 5000 movements.

Subjects: Ten chronic, hemiparetic subjects; four controls provided reference values for the performance measurements.

Outcome measures: Four performance indicators (derived from the analysis of the reaching trajectories); clinical/functional measures (Fugl-Meyer and Ashworth scales).

Results: After robot therapy reaching movements became faster and smoother. The performance in the no-vision trials was at least as good as in the vision trials. The Fugl-Meyer arm scores also increased significantly and remained approximately constant at follow-up; the Ashworth scores did not change.

Conclusion: In spite of its simplicity, a limited number of `gentle' robot therapy sessions appear to be beneficial, even for severely impaired patients, although no firm conclusion can be drawn at this point. However, the study provides support material for the careful design of controlled clinical trials and for a better integration with physiotherapy.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 23, No. 3, 217-228 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0269215508096759


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?