4.1 Article

Feasibility and efficacy of high-speed gait training with a voluntary driven exoskeleton robot for gait and balance dysfunction in patients with chronic stroke: nonrandomized pilot study with concurrent control

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000132

关键词

gait training; rehabilitation; robotics; stroke; walking speed

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the feasibility of high-speed gait training with an exoskeleton robot hybrid assistive limb (HAL) in patients with chronic stroke, and to examine the efficacy of eight sessions (8 weeks) of gait training with a HAL compared with conventional physical therapy. Eighteen patients with chronic stroke were included in this study (nine each in the HAL and control groups). The HAL group underwent high-speed gait training with the HAL once a week for 8 weeks (20 min/session). The control group underwent conventional physical therapy for gait disturbance. Outcome measures were walking speed, number of steps, and cadence during a 10 m walking test, a timed up and go test, a functional reach test, and the Berg Balance Scale. Assessments were performed in the absence of the HAL before training and after the fourth and eighth training sessions. All patients in the HAL group completed the high-speed gait training without adverse events. The HAL group improved significantly in walking speed (55.9% increase, P < 0.001), number of steps (17.6% decrease, P < 0.01), and cadence (32.8% increase, P < 0.001) during the 10 m walking test. The patients also exhibited significant improvements in the timed up and go test, the functional reach test, and the Berg Balance Scale after HAL training (P < 0.01 in all). No statistical time-dependent changes were observed in any parameter in the control group. For chronic stroke patients, high-speed gait training with a HAL appears to be feasible and effective in improving gait and balance dysfunction despite the limitations of this nonrandomized pilot study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据