Multimedialna platforma wiedzy medycznej Internetowa Księgarnia Medyczna Kalendarium Konferencji
Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska
MENU
Shortcuts Submit an article Guide for Authors Special collections Ahead Of Print Reviewers 2023

open access

Vol 55, No 1 (2021)
Research Paper
Submitted: 2020-09-28
Accepted: 2020-12-01
Published online: 2020-12-14
View PDF Download PDF file
Get Citation

Early post-stroke rehabilitation for upper limb motor function using virtual reality and exoskeleton: equally efficient in older patients

Tereza Gueye123, Miriama Dedkova1, Vladimir Rogalewicz2, Marcela Grunerova-Lippertova1, Yvona Angerova2
DOI: 10.5603/PJNNS.a2020.0096
·
Pubmed: 33314016
·
Neurol Neurochir Pol 2021;55(1):91-96.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Šrobárova 1150/50, 100 34 Prague 10, Czech Republic
  2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, General University Hospital and First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Albertov 7, 128 02 Prague 2, Czech Republic
  3. Stroke Rehabilitation Unit, Geriatrics Department, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Londýnská 15, 120 00 Prague 2, Czech Republic

open access

Vol 55, No 1 (2021)
Research papers
Submitted: 2020-09-28
Accepted: 2020-12-01
Published online: 2020-12-14

Abstract

Aim of the study. To evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality therapy (VRT) Armeo Spring® upper limb exoskeleton (Armeo), in early post-stroke rehabilitation with a focus on the elderly.

Clinical rationale for the study. Convalescence from a stroke is a complex process driven by a spontaneous recovery supported by multifactorial activation. Novel technology-based rehabilitation methods are being introduced to support brain plasticity.

Materials and methods. Using a randomised controlled study design, participants within 30 days after stroke with arm paresis were, in addition to a daily rehabilitation programme, assigned to an intervention group (45 minutes Armeo IG n = 25; mean age 66.5 years) performing VRT, or to a conventional physiotherapy (45 minutes) control group (Armeo CG, n = 25, mean age 68.1 years). Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Fugl Mayer Assessment Upper Extremity Scale (FMA-UE) were performed before and after the three-week therapy with 12 therapeutic sessions. Results of participants < 65 and ≥ 65 years old were compared.

Results. Paretic upper arm function improved significantly in both the IG and CG groups, the improvement in FMA-UE was significantly higher in the IG compared to the CG (p = 0.02), and patients ≥ 65 years old presented an equal magnitude of improvement in paretic arm function compared to younger patients.

Conclusions and clinical implications. Early post-stroke rehabilitation strategies using, in addition to the daily rehabilitation programme, VRT with visual biofeedback is more effective on upper extremity motor performance than conventional physiotherapy, and the effectiveness does not diminish with patient age. This may be a promising addition to conventional physiotherapy in older stroke patients as well as in younger.

Abstract

Aim of the study. To evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality therapy (VRT) Armeo Spring® upper limb exoskeleton (Armeo), in early post-stroke rehabilitation with a focus on the elderly.

Clinical rationale for the study. Convalescence from a stroke is a complex process driven by a spontaneous recovery supported by multifactorial activation. Novel technology-based rehabilitation methods are being introduced to support brain plasticity.

Materials and methods. Using a randomised controlled study design, participants within 30 days after stroke with arm paresis were, in addition to a daily rehabilitation programme, assigned to an intervention group (45 minutes Armeo IG n = 25; mean age 66.5 years) performing VRT, or to a conventional physiotherapy (45 minutes) control group (Armeo CG, n = 25, mean age 68.1 years). Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Fugl Mayer Assessment Upper Extremity Scale (FMA-UE) were performed before and after the three-week therapy with 12 therapeutic sessions. Results of participants < 65 and ≥ 65 years old were compared.

Results. Paretic upper arm function improved significantly in both the IG and CG groups, the improvement in FMA-UE was significantly higher in the IG compared to the CG (p = 0.02), and patients ≥ 65 years old presented an equal magnitude of improvement in paretic arm function compared to younger patients.

Conclusions and clinical implications. Early post-stroke rehabilitation strategies using, in addition to the daily rehabilitation programme, VRT with visual biofeedback is more effective on upper extremity motor performance than conventional physiotherapy, and the effectiveness does not diminish with patient age. This may be a promising addition to conventional physiotherapy in older stroke patients as well as in younger.

Full Text:

View PDF Download PDF file
Get Citation

Keywords

early neurorehabilitation, virtual reality, exoskeleton, upper limb, elderly, stroke

About this article
Title

Early post-stroke rehabilitation for upper limb motor function using virtual reality and exoskeleton: equally efficient in older patients

Journal

Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska

Issue

Vol 55, No 1 (2021)

Article type

Research Paper

Pages

91-96

Published online

2020-12-14

Page views

9111

Article views/downloads

5813

DOI

10.5603/PJNNS.a2020.0096

Pubmed

33314016

Bibliographic record

Neurol Neurochir Pol 2021;55(1):91-96.

Keywords

early neurorehabilitation
virtual reality
exoskeleton
upper limb
elderly
stroke

Authors

Tereza Gueye
Miriama Dedkova
Vladimir Rogalewicz
Marcela Grunerova-Lippertova
Yvona Angerova

References (41)
  1. Lin MP. Time matters greatly in acute stroke care. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2020; 54(2): 104–105.
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. Nowak K, Derbisz J, Jagiełła J, et al. Time from stroke onset to groin puncture affects rate of recanalisation after mechanical thrombectomy: a real-life single centre experience. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2020; 54(2): 156–160.
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. Winters C, van Wegen EEH, Daffertshofer A, et al. Generalizability of the Proportional Recovery Model for the Upper Extremity After an Ischemic Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015; 29(7): 614–622.
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. Zarahn E, Alon L, Ryan SL, et al. Prediction of motor recovery using initial impairment and fMRI 48 h poststroke. Cereb Cortex. 2011; 21(12): 2712–2721.
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. Biernaskie J, Chernenko G, Corbett D. Efficacy of rehabilitative experience declines with time after focal ischemic brain injury. J Neurosci. 2004; 24(5): 1245–1254.
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. Kwakkel G, van Peppen R, Wagenaar RC, et al. Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke: a meta-analysis. Stroke. 2004; 35(11): 2529–2539.
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. Murphy TH, Corbett D. Plasticity during stroke recovery: from synapse to behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009; 10(12): 861–872.
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. Kitago T, Krakauer JW. Motor learning principles for neurorehabilitation. Handb Clin Neurol. 2013; 110: 93–103.
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. Bertani R, Melegari C, De Cola MC, et al. Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation in stroke patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Neurol Sci. 2017; 38(9): 1561–1569.
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. Veerbeek JM, Langbroek-Amersfoort AC, van Wegen EEH, et al. Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy for the Upper Limb After Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017; 31(2): 107–121.
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. Norouzi-Gheidari N, Archambault PS, Fung J. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on stroke rehabilitation in upper limbs: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012; 49(4): 479–496.
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. Masiero S, Celia A, Rosati G, et al. Robotic-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limb after acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88(2): 142–149.
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. Chong J, Sacco R. Risk factors for stroke, assessing risk, and the mass and high-risk approaches for stroke prevention. Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology. 2005; 11: 18–34.
    CrossRef
  14. Ovbiagele B, Nguyen-Huynh MN. Stroke epidemiology: advancing our understanding of disease mechanism and therapy. Neurotherapeutics. 2011; 8(3): 319–329.
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. Thrift AG, Thayabaranathan T, Howard G, et al. Global stroke statistics. Int J Stroke. 2017; 12(1): 13–32.
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. Chen P, Hreha K, Fortis P, et al. Functional assessment of spatial neglect: a review of the Catherine Bergego scale and an introduction of the Kessler foundation neglect assessment process. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2012; 19(5): 423–435.
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I, et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975; 7(1): 13–31.
    PubMed
  18. Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE. The fugl-meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002; 16(3): 232–240.
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. Thompson-Butel AG, Lin G, Shiner CT, et al. Comparison of three tools to measure improvements in upper-limb function with poststroke therapy. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015; 29(4): 341–348.
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, et al. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996; 77(12): 1226–1232.
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. Choo SX, Stratford P, Richardson J, et al. Comparison of the sensitivity to change of the Functional Independence Measure with the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills within different rehabilitation populations. Disabil Rehabil. 2018; 40(26): 3177–3184.
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. MoCA test. https://www.mocatest (February 25, 2020).
  23. Dong Y, Lee WY, Basri NA, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment is superior to the Mini-Mental State Examination in detecting patients at higher risk of dementia. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012; 24(11): 1749–1755.
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. Armeo Spring Hocoma. https://www.hocoma.com/solutions/armeo-spring/ (February 25, 2020).
  25. Gijbels D, Lamers I, Kerkhofs L, et al. The Armeo Spring as training tool to improve upper limb functionality in multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011; 8: 5.
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. Laver KE, Lange B, George S, et al. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 11: CD008349.
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. Angerova Y, Marsalek P, Chmelova I, et al. , Cost and cost-effectiveness of early inpatient rehabilitation after stroke varies with initial disability, International Journal of Rehabilitation Research: September 24. 2020; 43(4): 376–382.
  28. Parton A, Malhotra P, Husain M. Parton A, Malhotra P, Husain M, Hemispatial neglect, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 2004; 75: 13–21.
  29. Di Monaco M, Schintu S, Dotta M, et al. Severity of unilateral spatial neglect is an independent predictor of functional outcome after acute inpatient rehabilitation in individuals with right hemispheric stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92(8): 1250–1256.
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. Taveggia G, Borboni A, Salvi L. at al. Efficacy of robot-assisted rehabilitation for the functional recovery of the upper limb in post-stroke patients: a randomized controlled study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016; 52(6): 767–773.
  31. Colomer C, Baldoví A, Torromé S, et al. Efficacy of Armeo® Spring during the chronic phase of stroke. Study in mild to moderate cases of hemiparesis. Neurologia. 2013; 28(5): 261–267.
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. Bartolo M, De Nunzio AM, Sebastiano F, et al. Arm weight support training improves functional motor outcome and movement smoothness after stroke. Funct Neurol. 2014; 29(1): 15–21.
    PubMed
  33. Rodgers H, Bosomworth H, Krebs H, et al. Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2019; 394(10192): 51–62.
    CrossRef
  34. Gueye T, Dedkova M. Outcome of the Armeo Therapy with the Patients Developing Spastic Paresis of the Upper Limb, IV. Kladruby Symposium on Interdisciplinary Neurorehabilitation, book of abstracts, 2017, ISBN: 978-80-270-2951-8.
  35. Schinwelski MJ, Sitek EJ, Wąż P, et al. Prevalence and predictors of post-stroke spasticity and its impact on daily living and quality of life. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2019; 53(6): 449–457.
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. Wissel J, Ward AB, Erztgaard P, et al. European consensus table on the use of botulinum toxin type A in adult spasticity. J Rehabil Med. 2009; 41(1): 13–25.
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. Gracies JM. Pathophysiology of spastic paresis. I: Paresis and soft tissue changes. Muscle Nerve. 2005; 31(5): 535–551.
    CrossRefPubMed
  38. Gracies JM, Bayle N, Vinti M, et al. Five-step clinical assessment in spastic paresis. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010; 46(3): 411–421.
    PubMed
  39. Gracies JM. Pathophysiology of Impairment in Patients with Spasticity and Use of Stretch as a Treatment of Spastic Hypertonia. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America. 2001; 12(4): 747–768.
    CrossRef
  40. Calabrò RS, Russo M, Naro A, et al. Who May Benefit From Armeo Power Treatment? A Neurophysiological Approach to Predict Neurorehabilitation Outcomes. PM R. 2016; 8(10): 971–978.
    CrossRefPubMed
  41. Zeng N, Pope Z, Lee J, et al. A systematic review of active video games on rehabilitative outcomes among older patients. Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2017; 6(1): 33–43.
    CrossRef

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl