Öz
Amaç:
İnmeli hastalar, sıklıkla uzun-dönem fonksiyonel kısıtlılık ile sonuçlanan anlamlı düzeyde özürlülüğe maruz kalırlar. İnme rehabilitasyonunda robot yardımlı yürüme yeteneği ve dengenin daha iyi hale getirilmesinde yeni bir yöntemdir. Bu retrospektif çalışmada, inmeli hastalarda robot-yardımlı yürüme terapisinin (RAGT) sonuçlarını değerlendirmeyi amaçladık.
Yöntem:
Bu çalışmada, (RAGT) artı terapötik egzersiz (çok sayıda RAGT; ortalama seans sayısı 42,37±25,68) uygulanan kırt dokuz kronik inme hastası (ortalama inme sonrası süre 10,82±14,12 ay; ortalama yaş 57,06±14,73 yıl; 34 erkek; 15 kadın) yer aldı. Hastaların tedavi öncesi ve tedavi sonrası Brunnstrom alt ekstremite motor evreleme değerleri (Brunnstrom), fonksiyonel ambulasyon skalası (FAS), Ashworth spastisite skalası (Ashworth) ve Barthel indeks (BI) günlük yaşam aktivite skorları, medikal kayıtlardan ve bilgisayar veritabanından sağlandı. Bunun yanında, her hasta için hız ve mesafede iyileşme verileri, RAGT cihazı ile kaydedildi.
Bulgular:
İnme sonrası RAGT ve egzersiz tedavisi alan hastalarda başlangıç değerlerine kıyasla Brunnstrom, FAS, BI, RAGT cihazı hız ve mesafe ölçüm değerlerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı iyileşme gözlendi (p<0,05). RAGT cihazı hızda iyileşme değerleri ile başlangıç Brunnstrom-FAS-BI değerleri arasında orta pozitif korelasyon gözlendi (r değerleri sırasıyla +0,408; +0,371; +0,367 ve p<0,05). Ek olarak, RAGT cihazı hız iyileşme değerleri ile çalışma sonu Brunnstrom değerleri arasında orta düzeyde bir korelasyon vardı (r=+0,353; p<0,05).
Sonuç:
Çalışma bulgularımız inme sonrası RAGT uygulanmasının inme hastalarında motor fonksiyon, ambulasyon, günlük yaşam aktivitelerinde iyileşmeyi kolaylaştırmada etkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu çalışma, aynı zamanda başlangıçta daha iyi fonksiyonel durumu olan inme hastalarında, RAGT cihazı ile yürüme hızında daha fazla iyileşme ve daha yüksek tedavi başarısı göstermiştir. Yazarlar, inme hastalarının başlangıç değerleri ve RAGT cihazı çıkış verileri arasındaki korelasyonun prognoz açısından önemli bir belirteç olduğunu düşünmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Günlük yaşam aktiviteleri, inme, rehabilitasyon, robot teknolojisi
Kaynakça
Kim HY, Shin JH, Yang SP, Shin MA, Lee SH. Robot-assisted gait training for balance and lower extremity function in patients with infratentorial stroke: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2019;16(1):99.
Mustafaoglu R, Erhan B, Yeldan I, Gunduz B, Tarakci E. Does robot-assisted gait training improve mobility, activities of daily living and quality of life in stroke? A single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Acta Neurol Belg 2020;120(2):335-344.
Li Y, Fan T, Qi Q, Wang J, Qiu H, Zhang L, et al. Efficacy of a novel exoskeletal robot for locomotor rehabilitation in stroke patients: a multi-center, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Front Aging Neurosci 2021;13:706569.
Westlake KP, Patten C. Pilot study of Lokomat versus manual-assisted treadmill training for locomotor recovery post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2009;6:18.
Lee HY, Park JH, Kim TW. Comparisons between Locomat and Walkbot robotic gait training regarding balance and lower extremity function among non-ambulatory chronic acquired brain injury survivors. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021;100(18):e25125.
Holanda LJ, Silva PMM, Amorim TC, Lacerda MO, Simão CR, Morya E. Robotic assisted gait as a tool for rehabilitation of individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2017;14(1):126.
Baronchelli F, Zucchella C, Serrao M, Intiso D, Bartolo M. The Effect of Robotic Assisted Gait Training with Lokomat® on Balance Control After Stroke: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Neurol 2021;12:661815.
Bonnyaud C, Pradon D, Boudarham J, Robertson J, Vuillerme N, Roche N. Effects of gait training using a robotic constraint (Lokomat®) on gait kinematics and kinetics in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med 2014;46(2):132-138.
Chang WH, Kim YH. Robot-assisted therapy in stroke rehabilitation. J Stroke 2013;15(3):174-181.
Uçar DE, Paker N, Buğdaycı D. Lokomat: a therapeutic chance for patients with chronic hemiplegia. NeuroRehabilitation 2014;34(3):447-453.
Husemann B, Muller F, Krewer C, Heller S, Koenig E. Effects of locomotion training with assistance of a robot-driven gait orthosis in hemiparetic patients after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Stroke 2007;38(2):349-354.
Dierick F, Dehas M, Isambert JL, Injeyan S, Bouche AF, Bleyenheuft Y, et al. Hemorrhagic versus ischemic stroke: Who can best benefit from blended conventional physiotherapy with robotic-assisted gait therapy? PLoS One 2017;12(6):e0178636.
Sarı A. Comparison of end-effector and exoskeleton devices with robot-assisted gait training in patients with stroke. J Surg Med 2021;5(2):128-131.
Chien A, Chang FC, Meng NH, Yang PY, Huang C, Chou LW. Clinical Efficacy of a New Robot-assisted Gait Training System for Acute Stroke Patients. J Med Biol Eng 2021;41:99-107.
Mayr A, Kofler M, Quirbach E, Matzak H, Fröhlich K, Saltuari L. Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study of gait rehabilitation in stroke patients using the Lokomat gait orthosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007;21(4):307-314.
Tamburella F, Moreno JC, Valenzuela DSH, Pisotta I, Iosa M, Cincotti F, et al. Influences of the biofeedback content on robotic post-stroke gait rehabilitation: electromyographic vs joint torque biofeedback. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2019;16(1):95.
Van Nunen MP, Gerrits KH, Konijnenbelt M, Janssen TW, de Haan A. Recovery of walking ability using a robotic device in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2015;10(2):141-148.
Schwartz I, Meiner Z. Robotic-assisted gait training in neurological patients: who may benefit? Ann Biomed Eng 2015;43(5):1260-1269.
Kawashima N, Taguchi D, Nakazawa K, Akai M. Effect of lesion level on the orthotic gait performance in individuals with complete paraplegia. Spinal Cord 2006;44(8):487-494.
Bolliger M, Trepp A, Zörner B, Dietz V. Modulation of spinal reflex by assisted locomotion in humans with chronic complete spinal cord injury. Clin Neurophysiol 2010;121(12):2152-2158.
Donati AR, Shokur S, Morya E, Campos DS, Moioli RC, Gitti CM, et al. Long-Term Training with a Brain-Machine Interface-Based Gait Protocol Induces Partial Neurological Recovery in Paraplegic Patients. Sci Rep 2016;6:30383.
Colombo G, Joerg M, Schreier R, Dietz V. Treadmill training of paraplegic patients using a robotic orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev 2000;37(6):693-700.
Riener R, Lunenburger L, Maier IC, Colombo G, Dietz V. Locomotor training in subjects with sensori-motor deficits: an overview of the robotic gait orthosis Lokomat. Journal of healthcare Engineering 2010;1(2):197-216.
Kim HY, You JSH. A review of robot-assisted gait training in stroke. Brain Neurorehabil 2017;10(2):e9.
Nam KY, Kim HJ, Kwon BS, Park JW, Lee HJ, Yoo A. Robot-assisted gait training (Lokomat) improves walking function and activity in people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2017;14(1):24.
Aprile I, Iacovelli C, Goffredo M, Cruciani A, Galli M, Simbolotti C, et al. Efficacy of end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training in subacute stroke patients: Clinical and gait outcomes from a pilot bi-centre study. NeuroRehabilitation 2019;45(2):201-212.
Tedla JS, Dixit S, Gular K, Abohashrh M. Robotic-Assisted Gait Training Effect on Function and Gait Speed in Subacute and Chronic Stroke Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Eur Neurol 2019;81(3-4):103-111.
Shin JC, Kim JY, Park HK, Kim NY. Effect of robotic-assisted gait training in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury. Ann Rehabil Med 2014;38(6):719-725.
Brunnstrom S. Motor testing procedures in hemiplegia: Based on sequential recovery stages. Phys Ther 1966;46(4):357-375.
Mehrholz J, Wagner K, Rutte K, Meissner D, Pohl M. Predictive validity and responsiveness of the functional ambulation category in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88(10):1314-1319.
Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Physical Ther 1987;67(2):206-207.
Mahoney FI, Barthel D. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965;14:56-61.
Mehrholz J, Thomas S, Kugler J, Pohl M, Elsner B. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;10(10):CD006185.
van Kammen K, Boonstra AM, van der Woude LHV, Visscher C, Reinders-Messelink HA, den Otter R. Lokomat guided gait in hemiparetic stroke patients: the effects of training parameters on muscle activity and temporal symmetry. Disabil Rehabil 2020;42(21):2977-2985.
Morone G, Bragoni M, Iosa M, De Angelis D, Venturiero V, Coiro P, et al. Who may benefit from robotic-assisted gait training? A randomized clinical trial in patients with subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2011;25(7):636-644.
Morone G, Iosa M, Bragoni M, De Angelis D, Venturiero V, Coiro P, et al. Who may have durable benefit from robotic gait training: a 2-year follow-up randomized controlled trial in patients with subacute stroke. Stroke 2012;43(4):1140-1142.
Morone G, Masiero S, Coiro P, De Angelis D, Venturiero V, Paolucci S, et al. Clinical features of patients who might benefit more from walking robotic training. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2018;36(2):293-299.
Hidler J, Nichols D, Pelliccio M, Brady K, Campbell DD, Kahn JH, et al. Multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Lokomat in subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009;23(1):5-13.
