Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke

Albert C. Lo, Peter D. Guarino, Lorie G. Richards, Jodie K. Haselkorn, George F. Wittenberg, Daniel G. Federman, Robert J. Ringer, Todd H. Wagner, Hermano I. Krebs, Bruce T. Volpe, Christopher T. Bever, Dawn Bravata, Pamela W. Duncan, Barbara H. Corn, Alysia D. Maffucci, Stephen E. Nadeau, Susan S. Conroy, Janet M. Powell, Grant D. Huang, Peter Peduzzi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

768 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Effective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks. Results: At 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, -0.14 points; 95% CI, -2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95% CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95% CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, -8.10 seconds; 95% CI, -13.61 to -2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: In patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1772-1783
Number of pages12
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Volume362
Issue number19
DOIs
StatePublished - May 13 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Upper Extremity
Stroke
Therapeutics
Confidence Intervals
Critical Care
Randomized Controlled Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Lo, A. C., Guarino, P. D., Richards, L. G., Haselkorn, J. K., Wittenberg, G. F., Federman, D. G., ... Peduzzi, P. (2010). Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(19), 1772-1783. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0911341

Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. / Lo, Albert C.; Guarino, Peter D.; Richards, Lorie G.; Haselkorn, Jodie K.; Wittenberg, George F.; Federman, Daniel G.; Ringer, Robert J.; Wagner, Todd H.; Krebs, Hermano I.; Volpe, Bruce T.; Bever, Christopher T.; Bravata, Dawn; Duncan, Pamela W.; Corn, Barbara H.; Maffucci, Alysia D.; Nadeau, Stephen E.; Conroy, Susan S.; Powell, Janet M.; Huang, Grant D.; Peduzzi, Peter.

In: New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 362, No. 19, 13.05.2010, p. 1772-1783.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lo, AC, Guarino, PD, Richards, LG, Haselkorn, JK, Wittenberg, GF, Federman, DG, Ringer, RJ, Wagner, TH, Krebs, HI, Volpe, BT, Bever, CT, Bravata, D, Duncan, PW, Corn, BH, Maffucci, AD, Nadeau, SE, Conroy, SS, Powell, JM, Huang, GD & Peduzzi, P 2010, 'Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke', New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 362, no. 19, pp. 1772-1783. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0911341
Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, Haselkorn JK, Wittenberg GF, Federman DG et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010 May 13;362(19):1772-1783. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0911341
Lo, Albert C. ; Guarino, Peter D. ; Richards, Lorie G. ; Haselkorn, Jodie K. ; Wittenberg, George F. ; Federman, Daniel G. ; Ringer, Robert J. ; Wagner, Todd H. ; Krebs, Hermano I. ; Volpe, Bruce T. ; Bever, Christopher T. ; Bravata, Dawn ; Duncan, Pamela W. ; Corn, Barbara H. ; Maffucci, Alysia D. ; Nadeau, Stephen E. ; Conroy, Susan S. ; Powell, Janet M. ; Huang, Grant D. ; Peduzzi, Peter. / Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. In: New England Journal of Medicine. 2010 ; Vol. 362, No. 19. pp. 1772-1783.
@article{2eed164399804a4cb5b39671ce438607,
title = "Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke",
abstract = "Background: Effective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks. Results: At 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, -0.14 points; 95{\%} CI, -2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95{\%} CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95{\%} CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, -8.10 seconds; 95{\%} CI, -13.61 to -2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: In patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)",
author = "Lo, {Albert C.} and Guarino, {Peter D.} and Richards, {Lorie G.} and Haselkorn, {Jodie K.} and Wittenberg, {George F.} and Federman, {Daniel G.} and Ringer, {Robert J.} and Wagner, {Todd H.} and Krebs, {Hermano I.} and Volpe, {Bruce T.} and Bever, {Christopher T.} and Dawn Bravata and Duncan, {Pamela W.} and Corn, {Barbara H.} and Maffucci, {Alysia D.} and Nadeau, {Stephen E.} and Conroy, {Susan S.} and Powell, {Janet M.} and Huang, {Grant D.} and Peter Peduzzi",
year = "2010",
month = "5",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1056/NEJMoa0911341",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "362",
pages = "1772--1783",
journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0028-4793",
publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",
number = "19",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke

AU - Lo, Albert C.

AU - Guarino, Peter D.

AU - Richards, Lorie G.

AU - Haselkorn, Jodie K.

AU - Wittenberg, George F.

AU - Federman, Daniel G.

AU - Ringer, Robert J.

AU - Wagner, Todd H.

AU - Krebs, Hermano I.

AU - Volpe, Bruce T.

AU - Bever, Christopher T.

AU - Bravata, Dawn

AU - Duncan, Pamela W.

AU - Corn, Barbara H.

AU - Maffucci, Alysia D.

AU - Nadeau, Stephen E.

AU - Conroy, Susan S.

AU - Powell, Janet M.

AU - Huang, Grant D.

AU - Peduzzi, Peter

PY - 2010/5/13

Y1 - 2010/5/13

N2 - Background: Effective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks. Results: At 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, -0.14 points; 95% CI, -2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95% CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95% CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, -8.10 seconds; 95% CI, -13.61 to -2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: In patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)

AB - Background: Effective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks. Results: At 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, -0.14 points; 95% CI, -2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95% CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95% CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, -8.10 seconds; 95% CI, -13.61 to -2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: In patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952301687&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952301687&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1056/NEJMoa0911341

DO - 10.1056/NEJMoa0911341

M3 - Article

C2 - 20400552

AN - SCOPUS:77952301687

VL - 362

SP - 1772

EP - 1783

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

SN - 0028-4793

IS - 19

ER -