Does Isolated Robotic-Assisted Gait Training Improve Functional Status, Daily Living And Quality Of Life In Stroke?
NCT ID: NCT02759627
Last Updated: 2016-05-09
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
51 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2014-11-30
2016-03-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Although most of the stroke survivors experience some level of neurological recovery, nearly 50%-60% of stroke patients still experience some degree of motor impairment, and approximately 50% are at least partly dependent in activities-of-daily-living (ADL). Gait recovery, performing activities of daily living and regaining independence in ADLs are the main focus of stroke rehabilitation programs.
Robotic technologies are becoming more promising techniques for the locomotor training in stroke patients. Achieving a functional walking level is one of the target of robotic gait training and it has been shown that Robotic-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) improves walking function in stroke patients. Having a functional gait level may help the stroke patients to regain independence in ADLs and improve quality of life.
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of RAGT on functional status, ADLs and health related quality of life.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The Effect of Robot-Assisted Gait Training in Stroke Patients
NCT04756570
The Effect of Robot-assisted Gait Training in Individuals With Chronic Stroke
NCT06746415
Robot-Assisted Gait Training With Self-Observation in Stroke Rehabilitation
NCT06476327
Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Structured Foot-Ankle Sensorimotor Training in Stroke Patients
NCT07091045
To Investigate the Effects of Robotic-assisted Gait Training in Stroke Patients
NCT04033185
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Our study design was a randomized single-blind controlled study of 6 weeks including inpatient ambulatory subacute and chronic stroke patients. Sample size was calculated by Raosoft, Inc. Clinically meaningful difference was considered 20% for all outcome measures. The original sample size was estimated 45 patients to detect a statistically significant difference between groups. Considering the drop-out, fifty-one patient were included. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three training group by a researcher (ARO) using the function of Microsoft Office Excel software.
In this randomized-controlled study, eighty patients were assessed in terms of eligibility criteria, and 51 patients were included in the study. The patients were evaluated by two physiatrists in Istanbul Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Education and Research Hospital and referred to the Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Unit of the same hospital. Enrollment period was between November 2014 and December 2015.
Blinding:
During the consent process, participants were advised that they would be randomized to one of three intervention groups. To minimize exposure between groups, the Robot-Assisted Gait Training and Conventional Training programs were administered in different sections of the rehabilitation center. The 2 trial physiotherapists could blinded to intervention group. All treatment schedules were planned by another researcher. All outcome assessments were conducted by a blinded assessor located offsite. Trial staff instructed participants to avoid mentioning anything about their intervention to the assessor. Patients were asked not to shear any information about treatment between each other.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Conventional Training
Conventional physical therapy consisted of neurophysiological concepts such as Bobath and Brunnstrom.Training sessions focused on static and dynamic postural tasks, improving lower and upper extremity range of motion, strengthening and overground walking. During walking training, emphasis was on distance walked than on gait quality. Symmetrical weight distribution was encouraged through verbal and tactile cues and was made more difficult by the addition of arm activities or actions requiring trunk rotation. In an effort to improve rhythmic weight-shifting ability, subjects practiced shifting their weight in forward and backward directions and side to side while performing reaching tasks. A session lasted 45 minutes, for 5 days per week for 6 weeks.
No interventions assigned to this group
Robotic-Assisted Gait Training
Lokomat (Hocoma) was used in Robotic-Assisted Gait Training group with 20 % body weight reduced. The participants walked on device at 1.8 km/h (0.5 m/sec) velocity. For each participant body weight portion was ensured by a security belt while walking. Each session took 45 minutes including setup, commands and rest time. Verbal instructions were used for encouragement but no manual assistance was given to improve gait. Robotic-Assisted Gait Training sessions lasted 45-minute sessions, 2 days a week during 6 weeks.
Robotic-Assisted Gait Training
There were three intervention arms in this study,
1. Robotic-Assisted Gait Training,
2. Conventional Training,
3. Combined Training.
Combined Training
Combined Training consisted of inpatient participants who were treated with 45 minute-conventional training, 5 days a week during 6 weeks. Additionally this group had 45 minute-Robotic-Assisted Gait Training, 2 days a week during 6 weeks.
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Robotic-Assisted Gait Training
There were three intervention arms in this study,
1. Robotic-Assisted Gait Training,
2. Conventional Training,
3. Combined Training.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* ambulatory with or without the use of an assistive device or ankle-foot orthosis,
* 3 or higher grades in Functional Ambulation Category,
* able to walk 10 meters with or without supervision,
* able to follow verbal instructions,
* physician approval to enter an exercise program.
Exclusion Criteria
* any other neurologic disorders, complications from other health conditions (cardiovascular or musculoskeletal conditions),
* contracture or muscle tonus ≥ 3 according to Modified Ashworth Scale, preventing range of motion in lower extremity,
* severe osteoporosis,
* cognitive deficit preventing them from following instructions.
18 Years
75 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Istanbul University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
RUSTEM MUSTAFAOGLU
MSc, PT
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
IPEK YELDAN, Assoc.prof
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Istanbul University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Istanbul, Turkey
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Belda-Lois JM, Mena-del Horno S, Bermejo-Bosch I, Moreno JC, Pons JL, Farina D, Iosa M, Molinari M, Tamburella F, Ramos A, Caria A, Solis-Escalante T, Brunner C, Rea M. Rehabilitation of gait after stroke: a review towards a top-down approach. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011 Dec 13;8:66. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-8-66.
Dombovy ML, Basford JR, Whisnant JP, Bergstralh EJ. Disability and use of rehabilitation services following stroke in Rochester, Minnesota, 1975-1979. Stroke. 1987 Sep-Oct;18(5):830-6. doi: 10.1161/01.str.18.5.830.
Schaechter JD. Motor rehabilitation and brain plasticity after hemiparetic stroke. Prog Neurobiol. 2004 May;73(1):61-72. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2004.04.001.
Mao YR, Lo WL, Lin Q, Li L, Xiao X, Raghavan P, Huang DF. The Effect of Body Weight Support Treadmill Training on Gait Recovery, Proximal Lower Limb Motor Pattern, and Balance in Patients with Subacute Stroke. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:175719. doi: 10.1155/2015/175719. Epub 2015 Nov 16.
Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1970;2(2):92-8. No abstract available.
ATS Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories. ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002 Jul 1;166(1):111-7. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.166.1.at1102. No abstract available.
Green J, Forster A, Young J. A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2001 Oct 15;23(15):670-6. doi: 10.1080/09638280110045382.
Silva SM, Correa FI, Faria CD, Correa JC. Comparison of quality-of-life instruments for assessing the participation after stroke based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Braz J Phys Ther. 2013 Sep-Oct;17(5):470-8. doi: 10.1590/S1413-35552012005000118. Epub 2013 Oct 21. English, Portuguese.
Silva SM, Correa FI, Faria CD, Correa JC. Psychometric properties of the stroke specific quality of life scale for the assessment of participation in stroke survivors using the rasch model: a preliminary study. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Feb;27(2):389-92. doi: 10.1589/jpts.27.389. Epub 2015 Feb 17.
Lennon S, Baxter D, Ashburn A. Physiotherapy based on the Bobath concept in stroke rehabilitation: a survey within the UK. Disabil Rehabil. 2001 Apr 15;23(6):254-62. doi: 10.1080/096382801750110892.
Visintin M, Barbeau H. The effects of body weight support on the locomotor pattern of spastic paretic patients. Can J Neurol Sci. 1989 Aug;16(3):315-25. doi: 10.1017/s0317167100029152.
Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31.
Hsieh YW, Wang CH, Wu SC, Chen PC, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007 May-Jun;21(3):233-8. doi: 10.1177/1545968306294729. Epub 2007 Mar 9.
Mustafaoglu R, Demir R, Demirci AC, Yigit Z. Effects of core stabilization exercises on pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength, and functional capacity in adolescents with substance use disorder: Randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2019 Jul;54(7):1002-1011. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24330. Epub 2019 Apr 26.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
A-22
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.