The Impact of Robotic Therapy on the Self-Perception of Upper Limb Function in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Randomization
2.2. Participants
2.3. Ethics
2.4. Interventions
2.5. Capabilities of Upper Extremity Questionnaire (CUE)
2.6. Independence in Activities of Daily Living (SCIM)
2.7. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Outcomes between Baseline and Ending Treatment Assessments
3.2. Changes between Groups after the Treatment
3.3. Correlation between CUE and SCIM Clinical Scales
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sweis, R.; Biller, J. Systemic Complications of Spinal Cord Injury. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2017, 17, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Francisco, G.E.; Yozbatiran, N.; Berliner, J.; O’Malley, M.K.; Pehlivan, A.U.; Kadivar, Z.; Fitle, K.; Boake, C. Robot-Assisted Training of Arm and Hand Movement Shows Functional Improvements for Incomplete Cervical Spinal Cord Injury. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2017, 96, S171–S177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center. Facts and Figures at a Glance; University of Alabama at Birmingham: Birmingham, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Snoek, G.J.; Ijzerman, M.J.; Hermens, H.J.; Maxwell, D.; Biering-Sørensen, F. Survey of the needs of patients with spinal cord injury: Impact and priority for improvement in hand function in tetraplegics. Spinal Cord 2004, 42, 526–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fouad, K.; Tetzlaff, W. Rehabilitative training and plasticity following spinal cord injury. Exp. Neurol. 2012, 235, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stokic, D.S.; Perry, B.E.; Evans, E.K.; Stokic, D.S. Weight compensation characteristics of Armeo®Spring exoskeleton: Implica-tions for clinical practice and research. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2017, 14, 14. Available online: https://bvsaludclm.jccm.es/results/mendeleycallback?token=ui.export.mendeley.9bf2ae26-fa4d-4acb-bb24-514363f08ac8&returnUrl=/results/exportopenurl?rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rfr_id=ori%3Asid%3ATDNet%3ACitation&ctx (accessed on 9 July 2020).
- Zbogar, D.; Eng, J.J.; Miller, W.C.; Krassioukov, A.V.; Verrier, M.C. Movement repetitions in physical and occupational therapy during spinal cord injury rehabilitation. Spinal Cord 2016, 55, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zariffa, J.; Kapadia, N.; Kramer, J.L.K.; Taylor, P.; Alizadeh-Meghrazi, M.; Zivanovic, V.; Willms, R.; Townson, A.; Curt, A.; Popovic, M.R.; et al. Feasibility and efficacy of upper limb robotic rehabilitation in a subacute cervical spinal cord injury population. Spinal Cord 2011, 50, 220–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holden, M.K. Virtual Environments for Motor Rehabilitation: Review. CyberPsychology Behav. 2005, 8, 187–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, M.F.; Prahm, C.; Kolbenschlag, J.; Oliveira, E.; Rodrigues, N.F. Application of AR and VR in hand rehabilitation: A systematic review. J. Biomed. Inform. 2020, 111, 103584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moggio, L.; de Sire, A.; Marotta, N.; Demeco, A.; Ammendolia, A. Exoskeleton versus end-effector robot-assisted therapy for finger-hand motor recovery in stroke survivors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 2021, 21, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehrholz, J.; Pollock, A.; Pohl, M.; Kugler, J.; Elsner, B. Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized con-trolled trials of robotic-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living and upper limb function after stroke. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. BioMed Cent. 2020, 17, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Intended Use & Indications—Hocoma. Available online: https://www.hocoma.com/solutions/armeo-spring/intended-use-indications/ (accessed on 17 July 2020).
- Yáñez-Sánchez, A.; Cuesta-Gómez, A. Effectiveness of the Armeo ® device in the rehabilitation of the upper limb of stroke’s patients. A review of the literature. Rev. Neurol. 2020, 70, 93–102. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31994166/ (accessed on 17 November 2020). [PubMed]
- Dunn, J.A.; Hay-Smith, E.J.; Keeling, S.; Sinnott, K.A. Decision-Making About Upper Limb Tendon Transfer Surgery by People with Tetraplegia for More Than 10 Years. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2016, 97, S88–S96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaur Ajit Singh, D.; Najwatul Akmal Ab Rahman, N.; Rajiman, S.; Shin Yin, C.; Abdul Karim, Z.; Safra Ruslan, A. Impact of Virtual Reality Games on Psychological Well-Being and Upper Limb Performance in Adults with Physical Disabilities: A Pilot Study. Available online: http://www.who.int/disabilities/en/ (accessed on 25 August 2020).
- Durocher, E.; Kinsella, E.A.; Ells, C.; Hunt, M. Contradictions in client-centred discharge planning: Through the lens of relational autonomy. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2015, 22, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fleming, M.K.; Newham, D.; Roberts-Lewis, S.F.; Sorinola, I. Self-Perceived Utilization of the Paretic Arm in Chronic Stroke Requires High Upper Limb Functional Ability. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2014, 95, 918–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sinnott, K.A.; Dunn, J.A.; Wangdell, J.; Johanson, M.E.; Hall, A.S.; Post, M.W. Measurement of outcomes of upper limb recon-structive surgery for tetraplegia. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2016, 97, 169–181. Available online: http://0-www-archives--pmr-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/S0003999316001799/fulltext (accessed on 17 November 2020). [CrossRef]
- Donnelly, C.; Eng, J.J.; Hall, J.G.; Alford, L.; Giachino, R.; Norton, K.; Kerr, D.S. Client-centred assessment and the identification of meaningful treatment goals for individuals with a spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2004, 42, 302–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yozbatiran, N.; Francisco, G.E. Robot-assisted Therapy for the Upper Limb after Cervical Spinal Cord Injury. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 2019, 30, 367–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, J.H.; Lee, H.J.; Cho, D.Y.; Lim, J.-E.; Lee, B.S.; Kwon, S.H.; Kim, H.Y.; Lee, S.J. Effects of Combined Upper Limb Robotic Therapy in Patients with Tetraplegic Spinal Cord Injury. Ann. Rehabil. Med. 2019, 43, 445–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marino, R.J.; Shea, J.A.; Stineman, M.G. The capabilities of upper extremity instrument: Reliability and validity of a measure of functional limitation in tetraplegia. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1998, 79, 1512–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oleson, C.V.; Marino, R.J. Responsiveness and concurrent validity of the revised Capabilities of Upper Extremi-ty-Questionnaire (CUE-Q) in patients with acute tetraplegia. Spinal Cord 2014, 52, 625–628. Available online: www.nature.com/sc (accessed on 20 May 2021). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Catz, A.; Itzkovich, M.; Agranov, E.; Ring, H.; Tamir, A. SCIM—Spinal cord independence measure: A new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord 1997, 35, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Glass, C.A.; Tesio, L.; Itzkovich, M.; Soni, B.M.; Silva, P.; Mecci, M. Spinal cord Independence Measure, version III: Ap-plicability to the UK spinal cord injured population. J. Rehabil. Med. 2009, 41, 41. Available online: www.winsteps.com (accessed on 7 July 2020). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kalsi-Ryan, S.; Beaton, D.; Ahn, H.; Askes, H.; Drew, B.; Curt, A.; Popovic, M.R.; Wang, J.; Verrier, M.C.; Fehlings, M.G. Responsiveness, Sensitivity, and Minimally Detectable Difference of the Graded and Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility, and Prehension, Version 1.0. J. Neurotrauma 2016, 33, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Itzkovich, M.; Gelernter, I.; Biering-Sørensen, F.; Weeks, C.; Laramee, M.T.; Craven, B.; Tonack, M.; Hitzig, S.L.; Glaser, E.; Zeilig, G.; et al. The Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) version III: Reliability and validity in a multi-center international study. Disabil. Rehabil. 2007, 29, 1926–1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Vanmulken, D.A.M.M.; Spooren, A.I.F.; Bongers, H.M.H.; Seelen, H.A.M. Robot-assisted task-oriented upper extremity skill train-ing in cervical spinal cord injury: A feasibility study. Spinal Cord. 2015, 53, 547–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eschweiler, J.; Gerlach-hahnhiarwth-aachende, K.G.; Jansen-toy, A.; Leonhardt, S. A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2014, 11, 3. [Google Scholar]
- Sørensen, L.; Månum, G. A single-subject study of robotic upper limb training in the subacute phase for four persons with cervical spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord Ser. Cases 2019, 5, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kalsi-Ryan, S.; Beaton, D.; Curt, A.; Duff, S.; Jiang, D.; Popovic, M.R. Defining the role of sensation, strength, and prehen-sion for upper limb function in cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil. Neural. Repair. 2014, 28, 66–74. Available online: http://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/pubmed/23778700 (accessed on 18 August 2020). [CrossRef]
- Prasad, S.; Aikat, R.; Labani, S.; Khanna, N. Efficacy of Virtual Reality in Upper Limb Rehabilitation in Patients with Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Asian Spine J. 2018, 12, 927–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kalsi-Ryan, S.; Beaton, R.; Curt, A.; Popovic, M.R.; Verrier, M.C.; Fehlings, M.G. Outcome of the upper limb in cervical spinal cord injury: Profiles of recovery and insights for clinical studies. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2014, 37, 503–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sledziewski, L.; Schaaf, R.C.; Mount, J. Use of Robotics in Spinal Cord Injury: A Case Report. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2012, 66, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Variables | Sample Analyzed | ||
---|---|---|---|
Control Group (n = 13) | Intervention Group (n = 13) | Levene Test | |
Sex (Male) * | 10.00 (76.90) | 8.00 (61.52) | F = 2.623, p = 0.118 |
Age (years) + | 46.81 (16.30) | 39.92 (16.52) | F = 0.253, p = 0.620 |
Injury level * | |||
C2 | - | 1.00 (7.69) | |
C3 | 1.00 (7.69) | 1.00 (7.69) | |
C4 | 4.00 (30.76) | 3.00 (23.07) | F = 0.176, p = 0.678 |
C5 | 6.00 (46.14) | 6.00 (46.14) | |
C6 | - | 1.00 (7.69) | |
C7 | 2.00 (15.38) | 1.00 (7.69) | |
AIS classification * | |||
A | 3.00 (23.07) | 3.00 (23.07) | |
B | 1.00 (7.69) | 3.00 (23.07) | F = 0.189, p = 0.667 |
C | 2.00 (15.38) | 1.00 (7.69) | |
D | 7.00 (53.83) | 6.00 (46.14) | |
Time since injury (months) + | 4.29 (1.37) | 3.86 (1.66) | F = 1.578, p = 0.222 |
Dominant arm (right) * | 12.00 (92.31) | 12.00 (92.31) | F = 0.000, p = 1.000 |
Treated arm (right) * | 10.00 (84.62) | 9.00 (76.93) | F = 0.729, p = 0.402 |
Dominant and treated arm (right) * | 8.00 (61.52) | 8.00 (61.52) | F = 0.610, p = 0.443 |
UER/UEL (0–25) + (dominant arm) | 15.63 (4.43) | 14.61 (5.88) | F = 0.114, p = 0.738 |
UER/UEL (0–25) + (treated arm) | 16.27 (4.90) | 13.69 (5.73) | F = 0.516, p = 0.479 |
SCI Patients (n = 26) | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control Group (n = 13) | Intervention Group (n = 13) | p2 | |||||||||
At Baseline | At Ending | At Baseline | At Ending | ||||||||
Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | t | p1 | ᶯ2 | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | t | p1 | ᶯ2 | ||
CUE scale | |||||||||||
Total score | 134.41(34.06) | 153.41 (41.57) | −2.971 | 0.013 | 0.47 ** | 117.23 (49.43) | 145.69 (53.33) | −3.598 | 0.004 | 0.52 ** | 0.724 |
Right UL | 61.75 (18.93) | 70.16 (24.01) | −2.763 | 0.018 | 0.41 ** | 51.00 (21.90) | 67.53 (23.62) | −3.862 | 0.002 | 0.55 ** | 0.978 |
Left UL | 66.25 (24.70) | 76.00 (25.28) | −2.603 | 0.025 | 0.38 ** | 59.61 (30.38) | 70.76 (29.08) | −2.697 | 0.019 | 0.38 ** | 0.724 |
Both UL | 6.41 (3.96) | 7.25 (4.28) | −1.968 | 0.075 | 0.26 ** | 6.61 (4.11) | 7.38 (4.36) | −1.115 | 0.287 | 0.09 * | 0.978 |
SCIM-III scale | |||||||||||
Total score | 33.00 (20.13) | 50.00 (24.51) | −5.079 | 0.000 | 0.68 ** | 31.00 (17.85) | 47.00 (24.50) | −3.586 | 0.004 | 0.52 ** | 0.663 |
Self-care | 4.30 (4.85) | 8.84 (6.38) | −3.255 | 0.007 | 0.47 ** | 3.53 (3.82) | 8.07 (6.84) | −3.153 | 0.008 | 0.45 ** | 0.681 |
Feeding | 1.30 (1.18) | 1.18 (0.89) | −1.723 | 0.110 | 0.20 ** | 1.15 (1.21) | 2.00 (0.91) | −3.091 | 0.009 | 0.44 ** | 0.030 |
Bathing—upper | 0.30 (0.75) | 0.92 (1.03) | −2.889 | 0.014 | 0.41 ** | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.92 (1.11) | −2.984 | 0.011 | 0.43 ** | 0.934 |
Bathing—lower | 0.23 (0.59) | 0.84 (0.89) | −2.889 | 0.014 | 0.41 ** | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.69 (0.94) | −2.635 | 0.022 | 0.37 ** | 0.609 |
Dressing—upper | 0.61 (1.19) | 1.84 (1.72) | −2.792 | 0.016 | 0.39 ** | 0.84 (1.46) | 1.61 (1.85) | −2.132 | 0.054 | 0.27 ** | 0.628 |
Dressing—lower | 0.30 (0.75) | 1.38 (1.66) | −2.592 | 0.024 | 0.36 ** | 0.30 (0.85) | 1.00 (1.63) | −1.671 | 0.121 | 0.19 ** | 0.374 |
Grooming | 1.53 (1.26) | 2.00 (1.15) | −1.196 | 0.255 | 0.11 * | 1.23 (1.01) | 1.84 (1.14) | −2.309 | 0.040 | 0.31 ** | 0.706 |
SCI Patients (n = 26) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Control Group (n = 13) | Intervention Group (n = 13) | |||
At Baseline | At Ending | At Baseline | At Ending | |
Total SCIM | 0.323 | 0.711 ** | 0.481 | 0.678 * |
Self-Care SCIM | 0.611 * | 0.837 ** | 0.613 * | 0.821 ** |
Feeding | 0.756 ** | 0.666 * | 0.478 | 0.835 ** |
Bathing—upper | 0.292 | 0.731 ** | 0.000 | 0.767 * |
Bathing—lower | 0.255 | 0.732 ** | 0.000 | 0.684 ** |
Dressing—upper | 0.431 | 0.656 * | 0.611 * | 0.777 ** |
Dressing—lower | 0.292 | 0.716 ** | 0.116 | 0.636 * |
Grooming | 0.763 ** | 0.818 ** | 0.760 ** | 0.770 ** |
Control Group (n = 8) | Intervention Group (n = 8) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Pre | Post | Pre | Post | |
Total SCIM | 0.202 | 0.932 ** | 0.504 | 0.706 * |
Self-Care SCIM | 0.707 * | 0.852 ** | 0.591 | 0.825 * |
Feeding | 0.781 * | 0.735 * | 0.577 | 0.848 ** |
Bathing—upper | 0.000 | 0.711 * | 0.000 | 0.806 * |
Bathing—lower | 0.000 | 0.711 * | 0.000 | 0.632 |
Dressing—upper | 0.310 | 0.711 * | 0.618 | 0.810 * |
Dressing—lower | 0.000 | 0.747 * | −0.055 | 0.581 |
Grooming | 0.754 * | 0.888 ** | 0.847 ** | 0.720 * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lozano-Berrio, V.; Alcobendas-Maestro, M.; Polonio-López, B.; Gil-Agudo, A.; de la Peña-González, A.; de los Reyes-Guzmán, A. The Impact of Robotic Therapy on the Self-Perception of Upper Limb Function in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6321. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19106321
Lozano-Berrio V, Alcobendas-Maestro M, Polonio-López B, Gil-Agudo A, de la Peña-González A, de los Reyes-Guzmán A. The Impact of Robotic Therapy on the Self-Perception of Upper Limb Function in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(10):6321. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19106321
Chicago/Turabian StyleLozano-Berrio, V., M. Alcobendas-Maestro, B. Polonio-López, A. Gil-Agudo, A. de la Peña-González, and A. de los Reyes-Guzmán. 2022. "The Impact of Robotic Therapy on the Self-Perception of Upper Limb Function in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 10: 6321. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19106321