Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Controlled Clinical Trial
. 2018;31(6):1059-1064.
doi: 10.3233/BMR-171015.

Effects of robot assistive upper extremity rehabilitation on motor and cognitive recovery, the quality of life, and activities of daily living in stroke patients

Controlled Clinical Trial

Effects of robot assistive upper extremity rehabilitation on motor and cognitive recovery, the quality of life, and activities of daily living in stroke patients

Derya Zengin-Metli et al. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2018.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effects of robotic rehabilitation on upper extremity functions, cognitive development, and activities of daily living in patients with subacute stroke.

Methods: This study was set as prospective and controlled. Subjects with subacute stroke were allocated into two groups as the robotic and control groups. All subjects received a conventional rehabilitation program five times a week for 3 weeks. In addition, robotic group received robotic rehabilitation five times a week for 3 weeks (30 minutes per session).

Results: There were 20 patients in the robotic group (mean age of 63.27 ± 3.88 years) and 15 patients in the control group (mean age of 59.25 ± 8.10 years). Compared with baseline, the Functional independence measure (both motor and cognitive subscale), Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale, and Motricity Index values did increase in both groups. Change levels of Fugl-Meyer Assessment FMA shoulder/elbow/forearm, and Motricity Index shoulder scores were significantly higher in the robotic group than the control group (p< 0.05). Compared with the baseline, physical component summary scores improved only in the robotic group, yet motor component summary scores improved only in the control group. Although Brunnstrom levels increased in both groups compared with baseline, change levels were similar.

Conclusion: In the light of our results, robotic rehabilitation in addition to the conventional rehabilitation program seems to be effective on improving motor recovery and the quality of life in subacute stroke patients.

Keywords: Cerebrovascular accident; activities of daily living; motor recovery; robotic rehabilitation; the quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources