Intensive sensorimotor arm training mediated by therapist or robot improves hemiparesis in patients with chronic stroke

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 305-310

  Volpe, Bruce T ^a,b,e   Lynch, Daniel ^a   Rykman Berland, Avrielle ^a   Ferraro, Mark ^a   Galgano, Michael ^a   Hogan, Neville ^b,c   Krebs, Hermano I ^a,b,d  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Recovery of function; Rehabilitation; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARM MOVEMENT; ARTICLE; CHRONIC DISEASE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEMIPARESIS; HUMAN; MALE; MOTOR DYSFUNCTION; MUSCLE TRAINING; PHYSIOTHERAPIST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; ROBOTICS; SENSORIMOTOR FUNCTION; STROKE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ARM; CHRONIC DISEASE; EXERCISE THERAPY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PARESIS; PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; ROBOTICS; STROKE; TEACHING; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 42449102220     PISSN: 15459683     EISSN: 15526844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1545968307311102     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Hendricks HT, van Limbeek J., Geurts AC, et al. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 ; 83: 1629-1637.
2. Kwakkel G., Kollen BJ, van der Grond J., et al. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003 ; 34: 2181-2186.
3. Shelton FN, Reding MJ Effect of lesion location on upper limb motor recovery after stroke. Stroke. 2001 ; 32: 107-112.
4. Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H., Raaschou HO, et al. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: time course of recovery. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 ; 76: 406-412.
5. Schaechter JD Motor rehabilitation and brain plasticity after hemiparetic stroke. Prog Neurobiol. 2004 ; 73: 61-72.
6. Nudo RJ, Wise BM, SiFuentes F., et al. Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science. 1996 ; 272: 1791-1794.
7. Butefisch CM Plasticity in the human cerebral cortex: lessons from the normal brain and from stroke. Neuroscientist. 2004 ; 10: 163-173.
8. Feys H., De Weerdt W., Verbeke G., et al. Early and repetitive stimulation of the arm can substantially improve the long-term outcome after stroke: a 5-year follow-up study of a randomized trial. Stroke. 2004 ; 35: 924-929.
9. Lincoln NB, Parry RH, Vass CD Randomized, controlled trial to evaluate increased intensity of physiotherapy treatment of arm function after stroke. Stroke. 1999 ; 30: 573-579.
10. Luft AR, McCombe-Waller S., Whitall J., et al. Repetitive bilateral arm training and motor cortex activation in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004 ; 292: 1853-1861.
11. van der Lee JH, Snels IA, Beckerman H., et al. Exercise therapy for arm function in stroke patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil. 2001 ; 15: 20-31.
12. Whiteall J., McCombe-Waller S., Silver KH, et al. Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke patients. Stroke. 2000 ; 31: 2390-2395.
13. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, et al. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006 ; 296: 2095-2104.
14. Dromerick AW, Lum PS, Hidler J. Activity-based therapies. NeuroRx. 2006 ; 3: 428-438.
15. Ferraro M., Palazzolo JJ, Krol J., et al. Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke. Neurology. 2003 ; 61: 1604-1607.
16. Hogan N., Krebs HI, Rohrer B., et al. Motions or muscles? Some behavioral factors underlying robotic assistance of motor recovery after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006 ; 43: 605-618.
17. Palazzolo JJ, Ferraro M., Krebs HI, et al. Stochastic estimation of arm mechanical impedance during robotic stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2007 ; 15.
18. Kahn LE, Zygman ML, Rymer WZ, et al. Robot-assisted reaching exercise promotes arm movement recovery in chronic hemiparetic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. J Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2006 ; 3: 12.
19. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, et al. Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 ; 83 (7). 952-959.
20. Ferraro M., Demaio JH, Krol J., et al. Assessing the motor status score: a scale for the evaluation of upper limb motor outcomes in patients after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002 ; 16: 283-289.
21. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L., Leyman I., et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975 ; 7: 13-31.
22. Lynch D., Ferraro M., Krol J., et al. Continuous passive motion improves shoulder joint integrity following stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2005 ; 19: 594-599.
23. Bohannon RW, Smith MB Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987 ; 67: 206-207.
24. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S., et al. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 ; 84: 950-963.
25. Lyle RC A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res. 1981 ; 4: 483-492.
26. Ellenbecker TS, Mattalino AJ, Elam E., et al. Quantification of anterior translation of the humeral head in the throwing shoulder. Manual assessment versus stress radiography. Am J Sports Med. 2000 ; 28: 161-167.
27. Carr J., Shepherd R. Neurological Rehabilitation: Optimizing Motor Performance. Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heinemann ; 1998.
28. Bobath B. The application of physiological principles to stroke rehabilitation. Practitioner. 1979 ; 223: 793-794.
29. Bohman IM Handling Skills Used in the Management of Adult Hemiplegia: A Lab Manual: Clinician's View. Albuquerque, NM: 1998.
30. Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Aisen ML, et al. Increasing productivity and quality of care: robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000 ; 37: 639-652.
31. Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Ferraro M., et al. Robot aided neurorehabilitation: from evidence based to science based rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil Clin Appl New Technol. 2002 ; 9 :in press.
32. Hogan N., Krebs HI, Fasoli S., Rohrer B., Stein J., Volpe BT Technology for recovery after stroke. In: Barnes MP, Dobkin BH, Bogousslavsky J, eds. Recovery After Stroke. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2003: 604-622.
33. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Tyler D., et al. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002 ; 33: 2593-2599.
34. Page SJ, Gater DR, Bach YRP. Reconsidering the motor recovery plateau in stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 ; 85: 1377-1381.
35. Carmichael ST Cellular and molecular mechanisms of neural repair after stroke: making waves. Ann Neurol. 2006 ; 59: 735-742.