Clinical Interpretation of Working Volume and Weight Support in Upper Limb Robotic Neurorehabilitation after Stroke
In the past two decades, many studies reported the efficacy of upper limb robotic rehabilitation in patients after stroke, also in its chronic phase. Among the possible advantages of robotic therapy over conventional therapy are the objective measurements of kinematic and kinetic parameters during t...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-12-01
|
| Series: | Applied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/24/12123 |
| _version_ | 1827674169008979968 |
|---|---|
| author | Marco Iosa Alex Martino Cinnera Fioravante Capone Alessandro Cruciani Matteo Paolucci Vincenzo Di Lazzaro Stefano Paolucci Giovanni Morone |
| author_facet | Marco Iosa Alex Martino Cinnera Fioravante Capone Alessandro Cruciani Matteo Paolucci Vincenzo Di Lazzaro Stefano Paolucci Giovanni Morone |
| author_sort | Marco Iosa |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In the past two decades, many studies reported the efficacy of upper limb robotic rehabilitation in patients after stroke, also in its chronic phase. Among the possible advantages of robotic therapy over conventional therapy are the objective measurements of kinematic and kinetic parameters during therapy, such as the spatial volume covered by the patient’s upper limb and the weight support provided by the robot. However, the clinical meaning and the usability of this information is still questioned. Forty patients with chronic stroke were enrolled in this study and assessed at the beginning of upper limb robotic therapy (Armeo<sup>®</sup> Power) and after two weeks (ten sessions) of therapy by recording the working volume and weight support provided by the robot and by administering six clinical scales to assess upper limb mobility, strength, spasticity, pain, neurological deficits, and independency. At baseline, the working volume significantly correlated with spasticity, whereas weight support significantly correlated with upper limb strength, pain, spasticity, and neurological deficits. After two weeks of robotic rehabilitation, all the clinical scores as well as the two parameters improved. However, the percentage changes in the working volume and weight support did not significantly correlate with any of the changes in clinical scores. These results suggest caution in using the robotic parameters as outcome measures because they could follow the general improvement of the patient, but complex relationships with clinical features are possible. Robotic parameters should be analyzed in combination with the clinical scores or other objective measures because they may be informative about therapy progression, and there is a need to combine their clinical, neuroscientific, and biomechanical results to avoid misleading interpretations. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T04:36:45Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-813a79c7675a413fba3c7629e210e3ce |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-3417 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T04:36:45Z |
| publishDate | 2021-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Applied Sciences |
| spelling | doaj.art-813a79c7675a413fba3c7629e210e3ce2023-11-23T03:43:34ZengMDPI AGApplied Sciences2076-34172021-12-0111241212310.3390/app112412123Clinical Interpretation of Working Volume and Weight Support in Upper Limb Robotic Neurorehabilitation after StrokeMarco Iosa0Alex Martino Cinnera1Fioravante Capone2Alessandro Cruciani3Matteo Paolucci4Vincenzo Di Lazzaro5Stefano Paolucci6Giovanni Morone7Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, ItalyIRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, 00179 Rome, ItalyUnit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology, Department of Medicine, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, 00128 Rome, ItalyUnit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology, Department of Medicine, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, 00128 Rome, ItalyUnit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology, Department of Medicine, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, 00128 Rome, ItalyUnit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology, Department of Medicine, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, 00128 Rome, ItalyIRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, 00179 Rome, ItalyIRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, 00179 Rome, ItalyIn the past two decades, many studies reported the efficacy of upper limb robotic rehabilitation in patients after stroke, also in its chronic phase. Among the possible advantages of robotic therapy over conventional therapy are the objective measurements of kinematic and kinetic parameters during therapy, such as the spatial volume covered by the patient’s upper limb and the weight support provided by the robot. However, the clinical meaning and the usability of this information is still questioned. Forty patients with chronic stroke were enrolled in this study and assessed at the beginning of upper limb robotic therapy (Armeo<sup>®</sup> Power) and after two weeks (ten sessions) of therapy by recording the working volume and weight support provided by the robot and by administering six clinical scales to assess upper limb mobility, strength, spasticity, pain, neurological deficits, and independency. At baseline, the working volume significantly correlated with spasticity, whereas weight support significantly correlated with upper limb strength, pain, spasticity, and neurological deficits. After two weeks of robotic rehabilitation, all the clinical scores as well as the two parameters improved. However, the percentage changes in the working volume and weight support did not significantly correlate with any of the changes in clinical scores. These results suggest caution in using the robotic parameters as outcome measures because they could follow the general improvement of the patient, but complex relationships with clinical features are possible. Robotic parameters should be analyzed in combination with the clinical scores or other objective measures because they may be informative about therapy progression, and there is a need to combine their clinical, neuroscientific, and biomechanical results to avoid misleading interpretations.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/24/12123strokeupper extremitiesmotor controlrange of motionrobotexoskeleton |
| spellingShingle | Marco Iosa Alex Martino Cinnera Fioravante Capone Alessandro Cruciani Matteo Paolucci Vincenzo Di Lazzaro Stefano Paolucci Giovanni Morone Clinical Interpretation of Working Volume and Weight Support in Upper Limb Robotic Neurorehabilitation after Stroke Applied Sciences stroke upper extremities motor control range of motion robot exoskeleton |
| title | Clinical Interpretation of Working Volume and Weight Support in Upper Limb Robotic Neurorehabilitation after Stroke |
| title_full | Clinical Interpretation of Working Volume and Weight Support in Upper Limb Robotic Neurorehabilitation after Stroke |
| title_fullStr | Clinical Interpretation of Working Volume and Weight Support in Upper Limb Robotic Neurorehabilitation after Stroke |
| title_full_unstemmed | Clinical Interpretation of Working Volume and Weight Support in Upper Limb Robotic Neurorehabilitation after Stroke |
| title_short | Clinical Interpretation of Working Volume and Weight Support in Upper Limb Robotic Neurorehabilitation after Stroke |
| title_sort | clinical interpretation of working volume and weight support in upper limb robotic neurorehabilitation after stroke |
| topic | stroke upper extremities motor control range of motion robot exoskeleton |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/24/12123 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marcoiosa clinicalinterpretationofworkingvolumeandweightsupportinupperlimbroboticneurorehabilitationafterstroke AT alexmartinocinnera clinicalinterpretationofworkingvolumeandweightsupportinupperlimbroboticneurorehabilitationafterstroke AT fioravantecapone clinicalinterpretationofworkingvolumeandweightsupportinupperlimbroboticneurorehabilitationafterstroke AT alessandrocruciani clinicalinterpretationofworkingvolumeandweightsupportinupperlimbroboticneurorehabilitationafterstroke AT matteopaolucci clinicalinterpretationofworkingvolumeandweightsupportinupperlimbroboticneurorehabilitationafterstroke AT vincenzodilazzaro clinicalinterpretationofworkingvolumeandweightsupportinupperlimbroboticneurorehabilitationafterstroke AT stefanopaolucci clinicalinterpretationofworkingvolumeandweightsupportinupperlimbroboticneurorehabilitationafterstroke AT giovannimorone clinicalinterpretationofworkingvolumeandweightsupportinupperlimbroboticneurorehabilitationafterstroke |