4.3 Review

What does best evidence tell us about robotic gait rehabilitation in stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE
卷 48, 期 -, 页码 11-17

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.10.048

关键词

Stroke; Gait rehabilitation; Robotics; Lokomat; End-effector; Exoskeleton

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Studies about electromechanical-assisted devices proved the validity and effectiveness of these tools in gait rehabilitation, especially if used in association with conventional physiotherapy in stroke patients. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of different robotic devices in improving post stroke gait abnormalities. Methods: A computerized literature research of articles was conducted in the databases MEDLINE, PEDro, COCHRANE, besides a search for the same items in the Library System of the University of Parma (Italy). We selected 13 randomized controlled trials, and the results were divided into sub-acute stroke patients and chronic stroke patients. We selected studies including at least one of the following test: 10-Meter Walking Test, 6-Minute Walk Test, Timed-Up-and-Go, 5-Meter Walk Test, and Functional Ambulation Categories. Results: Stroke patients who received physiotherapy treatment in combination with robotic devices, such as Lokomat or Gait Trainer, were more likely to reach better results, compared to patients who receive conventional gait training alone. Moreover, electromechanical-assisted gait training in association with Functional Electrical Stimulations produced more benefits than the only robotic treatment (-0.80 [-1.14; -0.46], p >.05). Conclusions: The evaluation of the results confirm that the use of robotics can positively affect the outcome of a gait rehabilitation in patients with stroke. The effects of different devices seems to be similar on the most commonly outcome evaluated by this review. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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