Robot Mediated Therapy-Upper Limb Outcomes in Stroke

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
This study aims to determine the clinical outcomes of stroke patients who are provided with adjunctive robot-mediated task specific therapy(RMTT) and robot-mediated impairment training (RMIT) as compared to those who are provided with adjunctive RMIT.

Detailed Description
-----------------
Stroke is among the top 10 causes of hospitalisation in Singapore1. Approximately 630 stroke patients were transferred to our inpatient rehabilitation unit in 2021. Upper limb impairments are common after stroke2 and may result in loss of function, including self-care activities. Intensity of therapy is thus important for post-stroke recovery. A Cochrane overview of systematic reviews suggested that arm function can be improved by providing at least 20 hours of additional repetitive task training to patients3. However, providing sufficient therapy remains a challenge due to various reasons4, including manpower shortages. Robotic-mediated rehabilitation is an innovative exercise-based therapy using robotic devices that enables the implementation of highly repetitive, intensive, adaptive, and quantifiable physical training. The RATULS trial5 showed that neither robot-assisted training using the MIT-Manus robotic gym nor an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme based on repetitive functional task practice improved upper limb function after stroke, as compared to usual care, for patients with moderate-to-severe upper limb functional limitations. It was suggested that further research was needed to find ways to translate the improvements in upper limb impairments seen with robot-assisted therapy into upper limb function and their activities of daily living (ADLs). In a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of robot-assisted therapy on the upper limb, it was found that although there were improvements in strength, this was not translated to improvements in activities of daily living6. Additional transition to task training (facilitated by therapists) had been added to robot-mediated impairment training (RMIT) in various studies7,8. In a study by Hung8, robot-assisted therapy combined with occupational therapist (OT)-facilitated task specific training was found to be superior to robot-assisted therapy combined with OT-facilitated impairment-oriented training. Task-specific training consists of repetitively practising the tasks that are most relevant to the patient and their personal context, whereas impairment-oriented therapy emphasises remediation of motor deficits with a focus on single joint movements at a time. A study that investigated Reharob, a robotic device used to assist patients living with chronic stroke in performing 5 ADLs, showed that patients had significant improvements on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM)9. This is the only study that has been found addressing robot-mediated task-specific training thus far (RMTT). This study aims to determine the clinical outcomes of stroke patients who are provided with both RMTT and robot-mediated impairment training (RMIT) in addition to conventional therapy, as compared to those who are provided with only adjunctive RMIT. From a review of the prevalent literature, there has been no study on the comparison of RMTT + RMIT against RMIT alone. A search for RMTT only yielded the study on Reharob, but the robot only administered RMTT and not RMIT. The target patients would be those with acute stroke undergoing rehabilitation in an acute inpatient rehabilitation unit. Robotic therapy can continue when they are discharged, in the outpatient setting.

Official Title
-----------------
Effects of Robot-mediated Impairment-Oriented and Task-Specific Training on Upper Limb Outcomes Post Stroke (RMT-Stroke Outcomes)

Conditions
-----------------
Stroke, Acute

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Device: Robot mediated upper limb therapy


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Diagnosis of stroke as evidenced by CT/MRI findings First-ever stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) Upper limb weakness and an FMA-UE score of 16-53 (severe to moderate: 16-34. moderate to mild: 35-53)12,13 Cognitively intact to follow instructions Medically stable to participate Consent given Age 21 and above Exclusion Criteria: 1. Fractures or other musculoskeletal issues that render the use of the robotic device unsuitable 2. Involvement in another concurrent upper limb study 3. Wounds that do not allow donning of the device 4. Severe spasticity 5. Cognitive impairment (MMSE ≤20) 6. Inability to follow instructions 7. Severe osteoporosis 8. Infectious diseases that require the patient to be isolated in a single room eg airborne diseases -

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 21 Years
Maximum Age: 99 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Treatment
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Interventional Model Description: Randomized controlled study
Masking: Double


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: Robot mediated Impairment-oriented training(RMIT)<br>Participant receives 20 hours of robot mediated impairment-oriented training applied via the Optimo Regen | Device: Robot mediated upper limb therapy<br>* The OR is classified as a Class A device with the Health Sciences Authority. The OR is capable of delivering RMIT as well as RMTT. It can provide zero, partial or full assistance to the patient to complete the movement or task. Its teach-and-follow mode allows a movement to be performed by the therapist, with the device then replaying the movement at either zero, partial or full assistance for the patient. Impairment oriented training will focus on the following movements: Diagonal movement Shoulder abduction Shoulder adduction Shoulder flexion Shoulder extension Elbow flexion Elbow extension Task-specific training will focus on the following activities: Picking up a cup/glass by the side and drink Brushing hair Cleaning unaffected upper limb (hand to arm) Wiping table Wiping wall Sliding card on table to a designated location Clipping a clothe peg<br>|
| Experimental: Robot mediated impairment-oriented and task-specific training (RMIT+RMTT)<br>Participant receives a total of 20 hours of robotic therapy. 10 hours will be in the form of RMIT and 10 hours in the form of RMTT | Device: Robot mediated upper limb therapy<br>* The OR is classified as a Class A device with the Health Sciences Authority. The OR is capable of delivering RMIT as well as RMTT. It can provide zero, partial or full assistance to the patient to complete the movement or task. Its teach-and-follow mode allows a movement to be performed by the therapist, with the device then replaying the movement at either zero, partial or full assistance for the patient. Impairment oriented training will focus on the following movements: Diagonal movement Shoulder abduction Shoulder adduction Shoulder flexion Shoulder extension Elbow flexion Elbow extension Task-specific training will focus on the following activities: Picking up a cup/glass by the side and drink Brushing hair Cleaning unaffected upper limb (hand to arm) Wiping table Wiping wall Sliding card on table to a designated location Clipping a clothe peg<br>|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Change of FMA-UE(Fugl Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity) from baseline | 30 items assessing motor function and 3 items assessing reflex function (0-66, higher scores indicates better outcomes) | baseline, 1 month and 3 months post commencement of intervention | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Change of FMA-UA( Fugl Meyer Assessment-Upper Arm) from baseline | subset of FMA-UE( 0-36, higher score indicates better outcomes) | baseline, 1 month and 3 months post commencement of intervention | 
| Change of FMA-W/H (Fugl Meyer Assessment- Wrist/Hand) from baseline | subset of FMA-UE (0-30, higher scores indicates better outcomes) | baseline, 1 month and 3 months post commencement of intervention | 
| Change of FAT( Frenchay Arm Test) from baseline | Upper limb functional assessment (0-5, higher score indicates better outcomes) | baseline, 1 month and 3 months post baseline | 
| Change of FIM (Functional Independence Measure) from baseline | Functional outcome measure, mainly used in inpatient setting (18-126, higher score indicates better outcomes) | baseline, 1 month, 3 months post baseline | 
| Change of MMT( manual muscle testing) from baseline | Using the Medical Research Council scale (0-5, higher indicates better outcomes) | baseline, 1 month and 3 months post baseline | 
| Change of MAS (Modified Ashworth Scale) from baseline | spasticity assessment scale (0-4, lower indicates better outcomes) | baseline, 1 month and 3 months post baseline | 
| Change of EQ5D from baseline | Quality of Life Questionaire (0-100, higher score indicates better outcomes) | baseline, 1 month and 3 months post baseline | 
| Change of HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) from baseline | Masurement of mood (0-42, more than 8 points in each subcategory indicates considerable symptoms of anxiety or depression) | baseline, 1 month and 3 months post baseline | 
| Change of patient satisfaction survey from baseline | Patient satisfaction survey (8-40), higher score denotes good outcome) | baseline, 1 month and 3 months post baseline | 
| Difference in the presence of adverse effects | fatigue, pain, injuries (present or absent. Absent denotes better outcome) | baseline, 1 month and 3 months post baseline |