## 3 Results
#### Comparison between Groups and between Baseline and Ending Conditions  
The three variables obtained for the two groups were compared at baseline and at ending the UE training. In the analysis of the baseline condition, statistically significant differences were observed in the measured length of the trajectory between the two selected groups, with the tetraplegic children having a longer trajectory (286.01 \(\pm\) 59.87) than the paraplegic children (123.61 \(\pm\) 17.14), p2 = 0.004 (Table 2, Figure 5a). Therefore, in terms of efficiency metric, the performance of the paraplegic group was significantly better. Regarding the number of peaks, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups analyzed. The result was slightly higher in the tetraplegic group (81.67 \(\pm\) 48.21) than in the paraplegic group (79.00 \(\pm\) 31.34; Table 2, Figure 5b), resulting in a less smooth UE movement. Regarding the Box and Block test, statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups both at baseline and at the end, with a lower performance in the number of blocks passed in the tetraplegic group (baseline 17.83 \(\pm\) 5.72; ending 19.40 \(\pm\) 5.41) than in the paraplegic group (baseline 39.40 \(\pm\) 9.02; ending 38.75 \(\pm\) 8.38), \(p\) < 0.01 (Table 2, Figure 6). Interestingly, no significant differences were found in this test performance in relation to the robotic training program, but all tetraplegic children tended to perform better once they had completed the training program that they had before starting it. For the other two variables, trajectory length and the number of peaks, no significant differences were found between the two experimental groups and between the baseline \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Tetraplegic Patients (n = 5)** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Paraplegic Patients (n = 5)**} & **P2** & **P3** \\ \hline  & **At Baseline** & **At Ending** & **P1** & **At Baseline** & **At Ending** & **P1** & \\ \hline Trajectory length & & & & & & & \\ (mm) & **286.01 \(\pm\) 59.87 a** & 128.73 \(\pm\) 30.07 & 0.109 & **123.61 \(\pm\) 17.14 a** & 114.13 \(\pm\) 34.59 & 0.285 & **0.004** & 0.700 \\ Peaks number & & & & & & & \\ (units) & 81.67 \(\pm\) 48.21 & 62.67 \(\pm\) 6.65 & 0.285 & 79.00 \(\pm\) 31.34 & 44.25 \(\pm\) 18.57 & 0.285 & 0.700 & 0.700 \\ Box and Block Test (blocks) & & & & & & & \\ \hline  & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Performance in relation to the trajectory, peaks number and the Box and Block test at baseline and at ending the upper extremity training for tetraplegic and paraplegic patients. Figure 5: Graphical results in relation to baseline and end conditions. Tetraplegic group is expressed as blue color, paraplegic as red color and the case of a single patient as green color: (**a**) Results about trajectory length; (**b**) Results about the peaks number. and ending conditions (Table 2). This finding can be seen in Figure 6, which shows the overlapping of the results obtained in both tetralegic and paraplegic patients. However, the improvement experienced by both groups between the two assessments can be seen graphically (Figures 5 and 6). It is worth showing the results obtained in a specific case of a patient with a spinal cord injury at the metameric level T2 (green color in Figures 5 and 6). This patient belongs to the paraplegic group. However, in terms of dexterity, his behavior was more similar to that of the tetralegic group at baseline, whereas, at the end of the UE training, it was more similar to that of the paraplegic group. Figure 7 shows the trajectory followed by this participant in both assessments, at baseline and at the end, graphically reflecting the improvement experienced. Figure 6: Graphical results in relation to baseline and end conditions for the Box and Block test. The tetralegic group is expressed in blue, the paraplegic group in red and the case of a single patient in green.