## 3 Results
### Feasibility Pilot Study  
Baseline comparison showed that the two groups were similar but the Ashworth scores were higher in the CG than in the RG (\(p=0.004\), \(p=0.025\), and \(p=0.017\) for shoulder, elbow, and wrist, respectively) and the hand sub-score of the Motricity Index (\(p=0.038\)). Within-group analysis showed that CG patients improved in the Ashworth scores (\(p=0.046\) for all the investigated segments). RG patients improved their score in Barthel Index (\(p=0.001\)), Deambulation Index (\(p=0.009\)), dynamometer (affected side: \(p=0.021\)), pinch test (affected side: \(p=0.034\); not affected side: \(0.034\)), Fugl-Meyer (total score: \(p=0.006\); volitional movement mixing synergies: \(0.034\)), and in a subscore of the Motricity Index (elbow: \(p=0.034\)). Between-group analysis showed that higher changes (meaning higher improvement) were detected in the Barthel Index (\(p=0.002\)), Deambulation Index (\(p=0.019\)), and in the Fugl-Meyer (total score: \(p=0.046\); hand: \(p=0.046\)) in the RG (Table 4). No dropouts and no adverse events were recorded. With respect to patient satisfaction, the robotic treatment was accepted by all patients, as showed by a score of \(8\pm 1\) in the VAS scale. Finally, according to the physiotherapists (\(n=14\)) involved in the robotic rehabilitation with the set, its usability was rated with a mean score of 78.9 (range 57.5-95) on the SUS scale, indicating a high degree of acceptance (between \"good\" and \"excellent\" on the overall scale).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Conventional Group (n = 10)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Robotic Group (n = 16)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)} \\ \cline{2-11}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**T0**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**T1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**_P_**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**T0**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**T1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(within**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(within**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group)**} \\ \hline  & **Median** & **Range** & **Median** & **Range** & **Group)** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Median**} & **Range** & **Median** & **Range** & **Group)** \\ \hline Barthel Index & 51 & (8–84) & 51 & (12–81) & 0.074 & 44 & (8–90) & 54.5 & (21–94) & **0.001** & **0.002** \\ \hline Dambulation Index & 2 & (0–5) & 2 & (0–5) & 1 & 1 & (0–5) & 2 & (0–7) & **0.009** & **0.019** \\ \hline Dynamometer (affected side) & 3 & (0–12) & 8 & (0-10) & 0.113 & 0 & (0–16) & 2 & (0–20) & **0.021** & _0.667_ \\ \hline Dynamometer (not affected side) & 14 & (2–38) & 12 & (2–38) & 0.66 & 24 & (4–46) & 25 & (4–50) & 0.918 & 0.918 \\ \hline Pinch Test (affected side) & 2 & (0–3) & 2 & (0–3) & 0.157 & 0 & (0–6) & 0.5 & (0–7) & **0.034** & 0.423 \\ \hline Pinch Test (not affected side) & 3 & (2–7) & 3 & (3–7) & 0.107 & 4.5 & (2–10) & 5 & (3–12) & **0.034** & 0.854 \\ \hline NRS & 5 & (0–10) & 5 & (0–10) & 0.488 & 3.5 & (0–8) & 2.5 & (0–7) & 0.796 & 0.728 \\ \hline
**Fugi-Meyer** & 17 & (2–56) & 23 & (2–56) & 0.063 & 10 & (2–49) & 16 & (2–57) & **0.006** & **0.046** \\ \hline Flexor synergy & 2 & (0–12) & 4 & (0–12) & 0.063 & 3 & (0–12) & 5.5 & (0–12) & 0.070 & 0.400 \\ Extensor synergy & 2 & (0–6) & 2 & (0–6) & 0.157 & 1.5 & (0–6) & 2.5 & (0–6) & 0.457 & _0.697_ \\ \hline Vollitional movement mixing synergies & 1 & (0–6) & 3 & (0–6) & 0.157 & 0.5 & (0–6) & 1.5 & (0–6) & **0.034** & 0.355 \\ Vollitional movement with little or no synergy & 1 & (0–5) & 2 & (0–5) & 0.157 & 1 & (0–5) & 1.5 & (0–6) & 0.149 & 0.473 \\ Wrist & 2 & (0–9) & 3 & (0–9) & 0.157 & 0 & (0–7) & 1 & (0–10) & 0.141 & 0.498 \\ Hand & 7 & (0–14) & 7 & (0–14) & 0.157 & 2 & (0–14) & 4.5 & (0–