Sensory Stimulation and Robot-Assisted Arm Training After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
| Autor: | Egger M; Department of Neurology, Research Group, Schoen Clinic Bad Aibling, Bad Aibling, Germany (M.E., J.B., C.K., K.J., F.M.); Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Faculty of Medicine, LMU Munich, Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany (M.E.); German Center for Vertigo and Balance Disorders (DSGZ), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, Munich, Germany (J.B., K.J.); and Chair of Human Movement Science, Department of Sports and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (C.K.)., Bergmann J, Krewer C, Jahn K, Müller F |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT [J Neurol Phys Ther] 2024 Oct 01; Vol. 48 (4), pp. 178-187. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 17. |
| DOI: | 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000486 |
| Abstrakt: | Background and Purpose: Functional recovery after stroke is often limited, despite various treatment methods such as robot-assisted therapy. Repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) might be a promising add-on therapy that is thought to directly drive plasticity processes. First positive effects on sensorimotor function have been shown. However, clinical studies are scarce, and the effect of RSS combined with robot-assisted training has not been evaluated yet. Therefore, our objective was to investigate the feasibility and sensorimotor effects of RSS (compared to a control group receiving sham stimulation) followed by robot-assisted arm therapy. Methods: Forty participants in the subacute phase (4.4-23.9 weeks) after stroke with a moderate to severe arm paresis were randomized to RSS or control group. Participants received 12 sessions of (sham-) stimulation within 3 weeks. Stimulation of the fingertips and the robot-assisted therapy were each applied in 45-min sessions. Motor and sensory outcome assessments (e.g. Fugl-Meyer-Assessment, grip strength) were measured at baseline, post intervention and at a 3-week follow-up. Results: Participants in both groups improved their sensorimotor function from baseline to post and follow-up measurements, as illustrated by most motor and sensory outcome assessments. However, no significant group effects were found for any measures at any time ( P > 0.058). Stimulations were well accepted, no safety issues arose. Discussion and Conclusions: Feasibility of robot-assisted therapy with preceding RSS in persons with moderate to severe paresis was demonstrated. However, RSS preceding robot-assisted training failed to show a preliminary effect compared to the control intervention. Participants might have been too severely affected to identify changes driven by the RSS, or these might have been diluted or more difficult to identify because of the additional robotic training and neurorehabilitation. Video Abstract Available: for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A478 ). Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest to declare. (Copyright © 2024 Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy, APTA.) |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|