Introduction: The growing number of stroke survivors with residual hand disabilities requires the development of efficient recovery therapy, and robotic rehabilitation can play an important role. Objective: The study aims to compare the relative effects of end-effector (EE) and exoskeleton (EXO) hand devices in motor recovery of patients with finger-hand motor impairment stroke. Methods: We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through search in database on PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane library until October 2020. We included as outcomes: motricity index (MI), quick version of disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire, and Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremity (FMAUE). We performed a systematic review, a meta-analysis, and a surface under the cumulative ranking analysis (SUCRA). Results: We included five RTCs and 149 subjects. MI showed a signifìcant improvement (p < .05) in robotic intervention group compared to control group (effect size, ES: 9.47; confidence interval, CI: 3.91, 15.03). QuickDASH reported a significant reduction (p < .05) in EXO group (ES: -6.71; CI: -9.17, -4.25). FMAUE showed a significant improvement (p < .05) in the EE group (ES:3; CI:1.97, 4.04). SUCRA analysis of MI demonstrated that robotic interventions are more likely to be the best option for motor recovery (97.3% of probability EXO; 48.3% EE; 4.4% control). Conclusion: Despite the limited number of studies included, exoskeleton robotic devices might be a better option than end-effector devices in the treatment of fingers motor impairment in stroke patients. Further studies are still needed to confirm the findings and should focus on a direct comparison of the two devices.

Exoskeleton versus end-effector robot-assisted therapy for finger-hand motor recovery in stroke survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis

Moggio L.
;
de Sire A.;Marotta N.;Demeco A.;Ammendolia A.
2021-01-01

Abstract

Introduction: The growing number of stroke survivors with residual hand disabilities requires the development of efficient recovery therapy, and robotic rehabilitation can play an important role. Objective: The study aims to compare the relative effects of end-effector (EE) and exoskeleton (EXO) hand devices in motor recovery of patients with finger-hand motor impairment stroke. Methods: We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through search in database on PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane library until October 2020. We included as outcomes: motricity index (MI), quick version of disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire, and Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremity (FMAUE). We performed a systematic review, a meta-analysis, and a surface under the cumulative ranking analysis (SUCRA). Results: We included five RTCs and 149 subjects. MI showed a signifìcant improvement (p < .05) in robotic intervention group compared to control group (effect size, ES: 9.47; confidence interval, CI: 3.91, 15.03). QuickDASH reported a significant reduction (p < .05) in EXO group (ES: -6.71; CI: -9.17, -4.25). FMAUE showed a significant improvement (p < .05) in the EE group (ES:3; CI:1.97, 4.04). SUCRA analysis of MI demonstrated that robotic interventions are more likely to be the best option for motor recovery (97.3% of probability EXO; 48.3% EE; 4.4% control). Conclusion: Despite the limited number of studies included, exoskeleton robotic devices might be a better option than end-effector devices in the treatment of fingers motor impairment in stroke patients. Further studies are still needed to confirm the findings and should focus on a direct comparison of the two devices.
2021
Fingers
hand
rehabilitation
robot-assisted therapy
robotic rehabilitation
stroke
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12317/71280
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 29
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 29
social impact