Robot Stroke Rehabilitation Results in "Modest Improvements"

A recent randomized trial of 127 stroke survivors has shown no significant difference between rehabilitation with the assistance of a robotic workstation and more conventional rehabilitation with the assistance of a human.

The study, conducted by Dr. Albert Lo of the Providence VA Medical Center in Rhode Island, separated 127 participants into three groups: human-assisted rehabilitation (50 patients), robot-assisted rehabilitation (49 patients), and usual care consisting of treatment with antiplatelets, antihypertensives and recommendations for diet and exercise (28 patients).

Dr. Lo described improvements in both the robot-assisted and human-assisted as “fairly modest.” He went on to say that the improvements were important “because there’s very little available for people with chronic stroke.”

The study focused on rehabilitation of the upper extremity, involving repetitive rehabilitation exercises in stroke patients with moderate-to-severe arm disability. The rehabilitation programs lasted 12 weeks, three one-hour sessions per week, and involved the same number of repetitions of arm exercises.

Outcome evaluations were performed immediately after the 12 week rehabilitation program, and included the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of basic motor function (the primary endpoint), the Wolf Motor Function Test of time to complete everyday tasks, and the Stroke Impact Scale. No significant differences were found between the human-assisted and robot-assisted treatment groups.

At the end of the follow-up period (36 weeks), patients who received robot or human-assisted rehabilitation had slightly better scores on all outcome measures than those in the usual care.

There were no differences between robot-assisted and human-assisted rehab on any of the outcomes at any time point.

The cost difference in treatment was substantial: the initial cost of the robots was $200,000, and the cost of the robot-assisted rehab program was around $1200 more per patient than that of usual care over the course of the year.

From this article, I gather that the robots were made by Interactive Motion Technologies.