Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT02759627
NCT02759627
Completed
N/A

Does Isolated Robotic-Assisted Gait Training Improve Functional Status, Daily Living And Quality Of Life In Stroke Patients?: A Single-Blinded Randomized Controlled Study

Istanbul University0 sites51 target enrollmentNovember 2014

Overview

Phase
N/A
Intervention
Not specified
Conditions
Cerebrovascular Stroke
Sponsor
Istanbul University
Enrollment
51
Primary Endpoint
The Barthel Index (BI)
Status
Completed
Last Updated
9 years ago

Overview

Brief Summary

Stroke is one of the major cause of morbidity and mortality and the leading cause of disability in adults all around the world. Stroke survivors can suffer several neurological impairments and deficits which have an important impact on patient's quality of life and which increase the costs for health and social services. After stroke, impairments in ADLs and functional status, deterioration in health related quality of life can be seen.

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.

Detailed Description

Design: 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.

Registry
clinicaltrials.gov
Start Date
November 2014
End Date
March 2016
Last Updated
9 years ago
Study Type
Interventional
Study Design
Parallel
Sex
All

Investigators

Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

RUSTEM MUSTAFAOGLU

MSc, PT

Istanbul University

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Not provided

Exclusion Criteria

  • Not provided

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

The Barthel Index (BI)

Time Frame: 6 weeks

The BI was used to determine the level of independence in functional activities and included ten items. The score ranges from 0-100, and a higher BI score indicates better functioning. Minimal clinically important difference for BI is 18.5 points.

The Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SSQOL).

Time Frame: 6 weeks

The Stroke Specific Quality of Life scale (SS-QOL) was used to address the ICF participation component.The score for the questionnaire is between 26 (lowest social participation) and 130 (highest social participation).

The Stair Climbing ascend and descend tests (SCas and SCde)

Time Frame: 6 weeks

Participants climbed up and down 10 steps (measuring 18 cm in height), with or without the use of the rails and/or assistive devices. Subjects were asked to climb the stairs without skipping any steps, preferably using one foot for each step and descend without stopping. The time taken to climb up and down the 10 steps was recorded as a second.

The 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT)

Time Frame: 6 weeks

Walking function was assessed by distance walked in 6 minutes (6MWT).Usual ambulatory devices, lower-extremity orthotics, and stand-by assistance were permitted. Therapists closely guarded participants during gait testing, but did not provide physical assistance. For the 6-minute walk test, participants walked through continuous hallways with minimal foot traffic. End of the test walked distance recorded by meter.

Secondary Outcomes

  • The Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)(6 weeks)
  • The Fast 10-m Walk Test (FWT)(6 weeks)
  • The Comfortable 10-m Walk Test (CWT)(6 weeks)
  • Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE)(6 weeks)

Similar Trials