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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Jan 28;19(1):12.
doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-00989-6.

Effects of Balance Exercise Assist Robot training for patients with hemiparetic stroke: a randomized controlled trial

Seigo Inoue #  1 , Yohei Otaka #  2   3 , Masashi Kumagai  1 , Masafumi Sugasawa  1 , Naoki Mori  1 , Kunitsugu Kondo  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effects of Balance Exercise Assist Robot training for patients with hemiparetic stroke: a randomized controlled trial

Seigo Inoue et al. J Neuroeng Rehabil. .

Abstract

Background: Robot-assisted rehabilitation for patients with stroke is promising. However, it is unclear whether additional balance training using a balance-focused robot combined with conventional rehabilitation programs supplements the balance function in patients with stroke. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of Balance Exercise Assist Robot (BEAR) training combined with conventional inpatient rehabilitation training to those of conventional inpatient rehabilitation only in patients with hemiparetic stroke. We also aimed to determine whether BEAR training was superior to intensive balance training.

Methods: This assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial included 60 patients with first-ever hemiparetic stroke, admitted to rehabilitation wards between December 2016 and February 2019. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups, robotic balance training and conventional inpatient rehabilitation (BEAR group), intensive balance training and conventional inpatient rehabilitation (IBT group), or conventional inpatient rehabilitation-only (CR group). The intervention duration was 2 weeks, with assessments conducted pre- and post-intervention, and at 2 weeks follow-up. The primary outcome measure was a change in the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) score from baseline.

Results: In total, 57 patients completed the intervention, and 48 patients were evaluated at the follow-up. Significant improvements in Mini-BESTest score were observed in the BEAR and IBT groups compared with in the CR group post-intervention and after the 2-week follow-up period (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: The addition of balance exercises using the BEAR alongside conventional inpatient rehabilitation improved balance in patients with subacute stroke.

Trial registration: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr ; Unique Identifier: UMIN000025129. Registered on 2 December 2016.

Keywords: Cerebrovascular disorder; Exercise; Physical therapy; Postural balance; Rehabilitation; Robotics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

YO was appointed at his current institution, the Fujita Health University, in April 2017. The institution has received research funding from the TOYOTA Motor Corporation, which developed the BEAR. However, no support was obtained for the present study, which was started in 2016 and conducted in another institution, Tokyo Bay Rehabilitation Hospital. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Balance Exercise Assist Robot (BEAR). A Overview. B Tennis game with active forward and backward center of gravity movement. C Ski game with active left–right weight shift. D Rodeo game in which the patient is required to keep the robot stationary against irregular disturbances
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Intensive balance training. A Trunk training in the supine position. B Dynamic balance training performed in a seated position. C Dynamic balance training performed in a standing position
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Flow diagram of participants
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Over-time changes in the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test scores among the groups. Error bars indicate standard errors. *Statistically significant between-group difference (P < 0.05). Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Questionnaire results following the interventions. Regular walking training was used as a reference (score 5). *Statistically significant difference (P < 0.05)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Pollock AS, Durward BR, Rowe PJ, Paul JP. What is balance? Clin Rehabil. 2000;14(4):402–406. doi: 10.1191/0269215500cr342oa. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Horak FB, Wrisley DM, Frank J. The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) to differentiate balance deficits. Phys Ther. 2009;89(5):484–498. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20080071. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bland MD, Sturmoski A, Whitson M, Connor LT, Fucetola R, Huskey T, et al. Prediction of discharge walking ability from initial assessment in a stroke inpatient rehabilitation facility population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(8):1441–1447. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.02.029. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Xu T, Clemson L, O’Loughlin K, Lannin NA, Dean C, Koh G. Risk factors for falls in community stroke survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(3):563–573.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.06.032. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arienti C, Lazzarini SG, Pollock A, Negrini S. Rehabilitation interventions for improving balance following stroke: an overview of systematic reviews. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(7):e0219781. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219781. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types