Table 2.
Study |
Patients |
Robotics |
Intervention |
Outcome measures |
||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author(s) | Study design | Quality score | N | Age in years (mean ± SD) | Time poststroke in years (mean ± SD) | Baseline velocity (m/s) | Apparatus | Body Weight Support (Y/N) | Treadmill training (Y/N) | Interaction with human body | Study duration | Follow-up | Use of 10MWT, 6MWT and/or BBS | Use of other outcome measures |
Device-in-charge support | ||||||||||||||
Kelley et al. (2013) | RCT | 9 | E: 11 C: 9 | E: 66,9 ± 8,5 C:64,3 ± 10,9 | E: 3,7 C: 1,4 | E: 0,20 ± 0,10 C: 0,18 ± 0,12 | Lokomat | E: Y C: N | E: Y C: N | Exoskeleton | 150 min/wk for 8 wk Total = 20 h | 3 months | 10MWT, 6MWT | BI, FMA-L, SIS |
Hornby et al. (2008) | RCT | 7 | E: 27 C: 21 | E: 57 ± 10 C: 57 ± 11 | E: 4,1 ± 4,2 C: 6,1 ± 7,3 | E: 0,59 ± 0,3 C: 0,6 ± 0,33 | Lokomat | E: Y C: Y | E: Y C: Y | Exoskeleton | 90 min/ wk for 4 wk Total = 6 h | 6 months | 6MWT, BBS | FAI, SF36 |
Westlake et al. (2009) | RCT | 8 | E: 8 C: 8 | E: 58,6 ± 16,9 C: 55,1 ± 13,6 | E: 3,7 ± 2,2 C: 3,1 ± 1,7 | E: 0,87 ± 0,55 C: 0,72 ± 0,37 | Lokomat | E: Y C: Y | E: Y C: Y | Exoskeleton | 90 min/wk for 4 wk Total = 6 h | _ | 6MWT,BBS | SPPB, FMA-L, LLFDI |
Tanaka et al. (2012) | Cross-Over | 7 | E1: 7 E2: 5 | E1: 63 ± 10 E2: 60 ± 8,5 | E1: 4,6 ± 3,1 E2: 5,5 ± 5,6 | E1: 0,75 ± 0,42 E2: 0,86 ± 0,16 | Gait-Master4 | E: N C: N | E: N C: N | End-Effector | 40 min/wk for 6 wk Total = 4 h | 1 month | 10MWT | TUG |
Dias et al. (2007) | RCT | 6 | E: 20 C: 20 | E: 70,4 ± 7,4 C: 68,0 ± 10,7 | E: 3,9 ± 5,3 C: 4,0 ± 2,5 | E: 0,42 ± 0,25 C: 0,53 ± 0,33 | Gait Trainer (GT1) | E: Y C: N | E: N E: N | End-Effector | 216 min/wk for 5 wk Total = 18 h | 3 months | 10MWT, 6MWT | TMS, RMI, FMA-L, MI |
Peurala et al. (2005) | RCT | 6 | E: 15 C: 15 | E: 51,2 ± 7,9 C: 52,3 ± 6,8 | E: 2,4 ± 2,6 C: 4,0 ± 5,8 | E: 0,25 ± 0,28 C: 0,25 ± 0,39 | Gait Trainer | E: Y C: N | E: N C: N | End-Effector | 100 min/wk for 3 wk Total = 5 h | 6 months | 10MWT, 6MWT | MMAS, FIM |
De Luca et al. (2013) | Before/After | 5 | E: 6 | E: 56,6 ± 13,2 | E: 5,1 ± 2,7 | E: 0,41 ± 0,04 | G-EO System | E: N | E: N | End-Effector | 225 min/wk for 4 wks Total = 15 h | _ | 10MWT, 6MWT | TUG |
Patient-in-charge support | ||||||||||||||
Kawamoto et al. (2013) | Before/After | 4 | E: 15 | E: 61 ± 14,8 | E: 3.9 ± 3,1 | E: 0,41 ± 0,26 | HAL (Hybrid Assistive Limb) | E: Y | E: N | Exoskeleton | 50 min/wk for 8 wk Total = 6,6 h | _ | 10MWT, BBS | TUG, |
Kubota et al. (2013) | Before/After | 4 | E: 9 | E: 56,8 ± 15,9 | E: 6,4 ± 6,3 | E: 0.39 ± 0.37 | HAL (Hybrid Assistive Limb) | E: Y | E: N | Exoskeleton | 40 min/wk for 8 wk Total = 5.3 h | _ | 10MWT,BBS | TUG |
Stein et al. (2014) | RCT | 9 | E: 12 C: 12 | E: 57,6 ± 10,7 C: 56,6 ± 15,1 | E: 4,1 ± 3,2 C: 7,4 ± 12,8 | E: 0,44 ± 0,45 C: 0,36 ± 0,47 | RLO (Robotic Leg Orthosis) | E: N C: N | E: N C: N | Exoskeleton | 150 min/wk for 6 wk Total = 15 h | 1 month, 3 months | 10MWT, BBS, 6MWT | FTSTS, TUG, CAFE40, Romberg |
Wu et al. (2014) | RCT* | 6 | E1: 14 E2: 14 | E1: 53,6 ± 8,9 E2: 57,4 ± 9,8 | E1: 7,3 ± 5,6 E2: 7,1 ± 6,0 | E1: 0,65 ± 0,38 E2: 0,72 ± ,036 | Cable-Driven Robotic Gait Trainer | E: Y | E: Y | End-Effector | 135 min/wk for 6 wk Total = 13.5 h | 2 wk | 10MWT, BBS, 6MWT | MAS, ABC, SF-36 |
E: experimental group; C: control group; BI: Barthel Index; FMA-L: Fugl Meyer Assessment Lower Extremity; SIS: Stroke Impact Scale; FAI: Frenchay Activity Index; SF-36: Short Form 36; SPPB: Short Physical Performance Battery; LLFDI: Late Life Function and disability Instrument; TUG: Timed Up and Go Test; TMS: Toulouse Motor Scale; RMI: Rivermead Mobility Index; MI: Motricity Index; MMAS: Modified Motor Assessment Scale; FIM: Functional Independence Measure; FTSTS: Five Times Sit-to-Stand; Romberg: Romberg’s Test; CAFE40: California Functional Evaluation; MAS: Modified Ashworth Scale; ABC: Activities-specific Balance Confidence.
Two experimental groups were compared with each other in this study.