Comparative Efficacy Research of Robot-Assisted Therapy With and Without Constraint-Induced Therapy in Stroke Rehabilitation: Does the Combined Therapy Improve Outcomes Compared With Monotherapy?
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Status
- Completed
- Enrollment
- 46
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Change in Motor Activity Log (MAL)
Study Overview
Brief Summary
There are 3 specific study purposes. First, we will examine the treatment effects of RT combined with dCIT (RT + dCIT) compared to RT, dCIT, and a dose-matched control therapy (DMCT) in stroke patients. Outcome domains will include motor, sensory, and muscle functions, amount of arm activity in real-life situations, patient-reported outcomes of daily performance and quality of life, and kinematic performance. Additionally, potential adverse effects including fatigue, pain, and a biomarker of oxidative stress will be examined. Second, we will investigate if the demographical and clinical characteristics of stroke patients may predict the probability of achieving clinically important changes of treatment outcomes. Thirdly, this study will examine whether the improvements after treatment reach clinically important or not and assess clinimetric properties of the outcome measures.
Detailed Description
This research project will investigate the efficacy of RT in sequential combination with dCIT relative to the therapies given alone and study the factors relevant to outcomes prediction to inform clinical practice. There will be 3 primary purposes in this comprehensive research:
Ⅰ. We will examine the effects of RT combined with dCIT (RT + dCIT) compared to RT, dCIT, and a dose-matched control therapy (DMCT) in stroke patients. Outcome domains will include motor, sensory, and muscle functions, amount of arm activity in real-life situations, patient-reported outcomes of daily performance and quality of life, and kinematic performance at before treatment, midterm assessment, and after treatment. In addition, potential adverse effects including post-exertional fatigue, post-exertional pain, and a biomarker of oxidative stress will be examined. We hypothesized that the therapeutic regimen combining RT with dCIT will contribute to more significantly reduction in impairment and disability for stroke patients than the other intervention groups.
Ⅱ. We will investigate if the demographical and clinical characteristics of stroke patients may significantly predict the probability of achieving clinically significant changes of treatment outcomes. The proposed candidate predictors will be chronicity, side of lesion, muscle tone, finger extension, motor function of distal upper limb (UL), and amount of real-life arm activity.
Ⅲ. We will examine whether the improvements after treatments are clinically important and will assess clinimetric properties of the outcome measures to establish the clinical significance relevant for individualized stroke rehabilitation. We will also assess and compare the clinimetric properties (e.g., validity, responsiveness, minimal detectable change, and minimal clinically important difference) of the rehabilitation outcomes to inform selection of instruments.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Intervention Model
- Factorial
- Primary Purpose
- Treatment
- Masking
- Single (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 20 Years to 80 Years (Adult, Older Adult)
- Sex
- All
- Accepts Healthy Volunteers
- No
Inclusion Criteria
- •6 months onset from a first-ever unilateral stroke
- •an initial UL subsection of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment score of 20 to 56
- •minimal motor criteria to receive CIT (i.e., ≥ 100 wrist extension and ≥ 100 extension at the thumb and any two other digits)
- •no excessive spasticity in any of the joints of the affected UL (modified Ashworth scale ≤ 3)
- •without upper limb fracture within 3 months
- •be able to follow study instructions and perform study tasks (Mini Mental State Examination ≥ 24)
- •welling to provide written informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
- •physician-determined major medical problems or poor physical conditions that would interfere with participation
- •excessive pain in any joint that might limit participation
Arms & Interventions
Distributed constraint-induced therapy (dCIT)
The dCIT group will focus on restriction on movement of the unaffected hand by placement of the hand in a mitt for 6 hours/day and intensive training of the affected UL in functional tasks for 1.5 hours/weekday over the 4 weeks.
Intervention: Distributed constraint-induced therapy (Behavioral)
Robot-assisted therapy (RT)
The ArmeoSpring (Hocoma AG, Switzerland) will be adopted in this study. It is a 5 degree-of-freedom skeleton mechanism that automates arm movement in a gravity-supported and computer-enhanced environment. The design of the arm support component of the ArmeoSpring is based on Wilmington Robotic Exoskeleton, an antigravity arm support. The ArmeoSpring g provides weight support for the arm across a large 3D workspace, enabling naturalistic movement across approximately 66% of the normal workspace in the vertical plane and 72% in the horizontal plane. Its main structure consists of an arm exoskeleton with elastic bands that relieve the weight of the limb and provide a sense of arm flotation at all positions in the available workspace. A custom grip sensor consisting of a water-filled cylindrical bladder detects grip pressure and finger movement and allows incorporation of grasp and release practice into arm training.
Intervention: Robot-assisted therapy (Behavioral)
Dose-matched control therapy (DMCT)
The DMCT group mediated by the therapists will be designed to control for the duration of therapy in amount of therapy hours. This group will received a structured protocol using conventional occupational therapy techniques such as neuro-developmental techniques with emphasis on functional tasks and muscle strengthening.
Intervention: Dose-matched control therapy (Behavioral)
RT + dCIT
In this combination therapy group, the participants will received 2 weeks of RT using the ArmeoSpring and followed by 2 weeks of distributed CIT. The treatment principles of RT and distributed CIT are the same with those described in the monotherapy of RT or dCIT, respectively. This combined intervention group may integrate proximal (shoulder and elbow) to distal (wrist and hand) training of the UL and help transfer from motor ability gained to functional performance improvement. That is, it appears to associate with the advantages/effects of each RT and dCIT intervention.
Intervention: Robot-assisted therapy (Behavioral)
RT + dCIT
In this combination therapy group, the participants will received 2 weeks of RT using the ArmeoSpring and followed by 2 weeks of distributed CIT. The treatment principles of RT and distributed CIT are the same with those described in the monotherapy of RT or dCIT, respectively. This combined intervention group may integrate proximal (shoulder and elbow) to distal (wrist and hand) training of the UL and help transfer from motor ability gained to functional performance improvement. That is, it appears to associate with the advantages/effects of each RT and dCIT intervention.
Intervention: Distributed constraint-induced therapy (Behavioral)
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Change in Motor Activity Log (MAL)
Time Frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks
The MAL consists of 30 structured questions to interview how the patients rate the frequency (amount of use subscale) and quality (quality of movement subscale) of movements while using their affected arm to accomplish each of the 30 daily activities. The score of each item ranges from 0 to 5, and the higher scores indicate more frequently used or higher quality of movements. The summary score is the mean of the item scores. The clinimetric properties of the MAL in stroke patients have been validated.
Change in Stroke Impact Scale Version 3.0 (SIS 3.0)
Time Frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks
The SIS 3.0 is a stroke-specific instrument of health-related quality of life. It contains 59 items measuring 8 domains (i.e., strength, hand function, activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living, mobility, communication, emotion. memory and thinking and participation) with a single item assessing perceived overall recovery from stroke. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale with lower scores indicating greater difficulty in task completion during the past week. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness have been shown to be satisfactory in stroke patients.
Change in Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)
Time Frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks
The upper-extremity subscale of the FMA will be used to assess motor impairment. The 33 upper limb items measure the movement and reflexes of the shoulder/elbow/forearm, wrist, hand, and coordination/speed. They are scored on a 3-point ordinal scale (0-cannot perform, 1-performs partially, 2-performs fully). The maximum score is 66, indicating optimal recovery. The sub-score of a proximal shoulder/elbow (FMA s/e: 0-42) and a distal hand/wrist (FMA h/w: 0-24) will be also calculated to investigate the treatment effects on separate upper extremity elements. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the FMA in stroke patients have been shown to be good.
Change in Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT)
Time Frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks
The WMFT was originally designed to assess the effects of CIT on the return of arm function for stroke and traumatic brain injury. The assessment requires the participant to perform 15 function-based and 2 strength-based tasks. The tasks are averaged to produce a score in seconds that ranges from 0 to 120 seconds. For functional ability scoring, we used a 6-point ordinal scale where 0 indicates "does not attempt with the involved arm" and 5 indicates "arm does participate; movement appears to be normal." The clinimetrics of the WMFT has been ascertained in stroke patients.
Change in Functional Independence Measure (FIM)
Time Frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks
The FIM consists of 18 items grouped into 6 subscales measuring self-care, sphincter control, transfer, locomotion, communication, and social cognition ability. Each item is rated from 1 to 7 (maximum score 126) based on the required level of assistance to perform the tasks (e.g., 1-complete assistance and 7-complete independence). A higher score on any subscale indicates a less disability. The FIM has been shown to have good inter-rater reliability, construct validity, and discriminant validity.
Secondary Outcomes
- Change in Urinary 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine (8-OHdG)(Baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks)
- Change in Revised Nottingham Sensory Assessment (RNSA)(Baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks)
- Change in MyotonPRO(Baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks)
- Change in Medical Research Council scale (MRC)(Baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks)
- Change in Actigraphy(Baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks)
- Change in Kinematic analysis(Baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks)
- Change in Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)(Baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks)
- Change in Visual analogue scale (VAS) for assessing post-exertional fatigue and pain(From the date of treatment started until the date of treatment ended at 0, 90, 105 minutes for each treatment period)