NCT02721212

Brief Summary

54 inpatients participants were randomly divided into two groups (experimental and conventional). Individual of experimental group were treated according to an established protocol for ARMEO Spring (30 minutes/session with "Armeo Spring" and 30 minutes/session with conventional treatment 5 days/week for 6 weeks). The conventional treatment consists of passive and active assisted mobilization of the upper limbs, traditional training based on the Bobath concept. Inpatients of control group were treated with conventional treatment with training session of 60 minutes 5 days/week for 6 weeks. All patients were evaluated by a blinded observer using the outcomes tests at enrollment (T0), after the treatment (T1) and at follow up 6 weeks later (T2). We assessed the impact on functional recovery (Functional Independence Measure - FIM scale), strength (ARM Motricity Index-MI), spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale-MAS) and pain (Numeric Rating Pain Scale -NRPS).

Trial Health

43
At Risk

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Trial has exceeded expected completion date
Enrollment
54

participants targeted

Target at P50-P75 for not_applicable stroke

Timeline
Completed

Started Mar 2016

Shorter than P25 for not_applicable stroke

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
unknown

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

March 1, 2016

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Start

First participant enrolled

March 1, 2016

Completed
28 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

March 29, 2016

Completed
1 month until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

May 1, 2016

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

May 1, 2016

Completed
Last Updated

March 29, 2016

Status Verified

March 1, 2016

Enrollment Period

2 months

First QC Date

March 1, 2016

Last Update Submit

March 22, 2016

Conditions

Keywords

RoboticStrokeUpper Limb Rehabilitation

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (2)

  • Change in Functional Independence Measure - FIM

    All patients were evaluated by a blinded observer using the outcomes tests at enrollment (T0), after the treatment (T1) and at follow up 6 weeks later (T2). Investigators assessed the impact on functional recovery (Functional Independence Measure - FIM scale).

    From baseline (T0) to 6 weeks (T1) and 12 weeks (T2)

  • Change in strength (ARM Motricity Index-MI)

    All patients were evaluated by a blinded observer using the outcomes tests at enrollment (T0), after the treatment (T1) and at follow up 6 weeks later (T2). Investigators assessed the impact on strength (ARM Motricity Index-MI)

    From baseline (T0) to 6 weeks (T1) and 12 weeks (T2)

Secondary Outcomes (2)

  • Change in spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale-MAS)

    From baseline (T0) to 6 weeks (T1) and 12 weeks (T2)

  • Change in pain (Numeric Rating Pain Scale -NRPS)

    From baseline (T0) to 6 weeks (T1) and 12 weeks (T2)

Study Arms (2)

Armeo Spring

EXPERIMENTAL

All patients of experimental group were treated according to an established protocol for ARMEO Spring. In the first session the device was adjusted for patients arms. The physiotherapist controlled functional space of upper limb movement and correct position of working station. Each training session consisted of two parts with 30 minutes per session with "Armeo Spring" and 30 minutes per session with conventional treatment 5 days per week, for 6 weeks.

Device: Armeo Spring

Control Group

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

The conventional treatment, under control of physiotherapist, consists of passive and active assisted mobilization of the upper limbs traditional training based on the Bobath concept (neuromuscular facilitation, postural control and proprioception exercises, verticalization and gait training). Each training session consisted of 60 minutes with conventional treatment 5 days per week, for 6 weeks in a control group. The conventional session in the experimental group lasted 30 minutes with the same techniques and methods.

Other: Conventional Rehabilitation

Interventions

All patients of experimental group were treated according to an established protocol for ARMEO Spring. In the first session the device was adjusted for patients arms. The physiotherapist controlled functional space of upper limb movement and correct position of working station. Each training session consisted of two parts with 30 minutes per session with "Armeo Spring" and 30 minutes per session with conventional treatment 5 days per week, for 6 weeks.

Armeo Spring

The conventional treatment, under control of physiotherapist, consists of passive and active assisted mobilization of the upper limbs traditional training based on the Bobath concept (neuromuscular facilitation, postural control and proprioception exercises, verticalization and gait training). Each training session consisted of 60 minutes with conventional treatment 5 days per week, for 6 weeks in a control group. The conventional session in the experimental group lasted 30 minutes with the same techniques and methods.

Control Group

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years - 80 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • The clinical diagnosis of stroke
  • post stroke hemiparesis
  • maximum six months from stroke
  • stability of the clinical picture at the time of roll-in
  • minimum level of upper arm motility (\>2) movement against gravity
  • trunk control and ability to maintain sitting position for at least 120 minutes

You may not qualify if:

  • Hemiplegia of other aetiology ( neurodegenerative, neoplastic)
  • Presence of articular ankyloses, spasms and/or severe muscle spasticity with complete loss of movement in any of the three major joints
  • Instability of upper limb bone (not consolidated fractures)
  • Presence of cognitive impairment (MMSE\<=21) and/or psychiatric disease
  • Concomitant disease that could prevent the rehabilitation program (respiratory failure, heart failure, osteomyelitis, thrombophlebitis and other clinical condition that are against rehabilitation treatment)
  • Ulcer sores that can contraindicate the use to ARMEO Spring
  • Ashworth \> 3 (for each of the three upper limb joints)

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Habilita, Sarnico's Hospital

Sarnico, Bergamo, 24067, Italy

Location

Related Publications (33)

  • Kernan WN, Ovbiagele B, Kittner SJ; Secondary Prevention Guideline Writing Group. Response to letter regarding article, "Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association". Stroke. 2015 Apr;46(4):e87-9. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.008661. Epub 2015 Mar 5. No abstract available.

  • Kernan WN, Ovbiagele B, Black HR, Bravata DM, Chimowitz MI, Ezekowitz MD, Fang MC, Fisher M, Furie KL, Heck DV, Johnston SC, Kasner SE, Kittner SJ, Mitchell PH, Rich MW, Richardson D, Schwamm LH, Wilson JA; American Heart Association Stroke Council, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014 Jul;45(7):2160-236. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000024. Epub 2014 May 1.

  • Colomer C, Baldovi A, Torrome S, Navarro MD, Moliner B, Ferri J, Noe E. Efficacy of Armeo(R) Spring during the chronic phase of stroke. Study in mild to moderate cases of hemiparesis. Neurologia. 2013 Jun;28(5):261-7. doi: 10.1016/j.nrl.2012.04.017. Epub 2012 Jun 23. English, Spanish.

  • Boian R, Sharma A, Han C, Merians A, Burdea G, Adamovich S, Recce M, Tremaine M, Poizner H. Virtual reality-based post-stroke hand rehabilitation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2002;85:64-70.

  • Brokaw EB, Murray T, Nef T, Lum PS. Retraining of interjoint arm coordination after stroke using robot-assisted time-independent functional training. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):299-316. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2010.04.0064.

  • Butefisch C, Hummelsheim H, Denzler P, Mauritz KH. Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand. J Neurol Sci. 1995 May;130(1):59-68. doi: 10.1016/0022-510x(95)00003-k.

  • Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, Taub E, Uswatte G, Morris D, Giuliani C, Light KE, Nichols-Larsen D; EXCITE Investigators. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006 Nov 1;296(17):2095-104. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.17.2095.

  • Knutson JS, Hisel TZ, Harley MY, Chae J. A novel functional electrical stimulation treatment for recovery of hand function in hemiplegia: 12-week pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jan;23(1):17-25. doi: 10.1177/1545968308317577. Epub 2008 Sep 23.

  • Basteris A, Nijenhuis SM, Stienen AH, Buurke JH, Prange GB, Amirabdollahian F. Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: a framework for classification based on a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Jul 10;11:111. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-111.

  • Laver KE, George S, Thomas S, Deutsch JE, Crotty M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 12;2015(2):CD008349. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008349.pub3.

  • Tesio L, Granger CV, Perucca L, Franchignoni FP, Battaglia MA, Russell CF. The FIM instrument in the United States and Italy: a comparative study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Mar;81(3):168-76. doi: 10.1097/00002060-200203000-00003.

  • Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J, Frontera WR, Hughes R, Hogan N. Robotic therapy for chronic motor impairments after stroke: Follow-up results. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Jul;85(7):1106-11. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.11.028.

  • Kim YJ, Ku J, Cho S, Kim HJ, Cho YK, Lim T, Kang YJ. Facilitation of corticospinal excitability by virtual reality exercise following anodal transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy volunteers and subacute stroke subjects. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Aug 18;11:124. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-124.

  • Teasell RW, Murie Fernandez M, McIntyre A, Mehta S. Rethinking the continuum of stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Apr;95(4):595-6. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.11.014. Epub 2014 Feb 14.

  • Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Van der Loos M. Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Jul;83(7):952-9. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.33101.

  • Demain S, Burridge J, Ellis-Hill C, Hughes AM, Yardley L, Tedesco-Triccas L, Swain I. Assistive technologies after stroke: self-management or fending for yourself? A focus group study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Aug 22;13:334. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-334.

  • Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22(3-5):281-99.

  • Ridding MC, Brouwer B, Miles TS, Pitcher JB, Thompson PD. Changes in muscle responses to stimulation of the motor cortex induced by peripheral nerve stimulation in human subjects. Exp Brain Res. 2000 Mar;131(1):135-43. doi: 10.1007/s002219900269.

  • Rossini PM, Dal Forno G. Neuronal post-stroke plasticity in the adult. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22(3-5):193-206.

  • Nudo RJ. Postinfarct cortical plasticity and behavioral recovery. Stroke. 2007 Feb;38(2 Suppl):840-5. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000247943.12887.d2.

  • Villafane JH, Valdes K, Anselmi F, Pirali C, Negrini S. The diagnostic accuracy of five tests for diagnosing partial-thickness tears of the supraspinatus tendon: A cohort study. J Hand Ther. 2015 Jul-Sep;28(3):247-51; quiz 252. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2015.01.011. Epub 2015 Feb 19.

  • Prange GB, Jannink MJ, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Hermens HJ, Ijzerman MJ. Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006 Mar-Apr;43(2):171-84. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2005.04.0076.

  • Lotze M, Braun C, Birbaumer N, Anders S, Cohen LG. Motor learning elicited by voluntary drive. Brain. 2003 Apr;126(Pt 4):866-72. doi: 10.1093/brain/awg079.

  • Takahashi CD, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le V, Motiwala RR, Cramer SC. Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain. 2008 Feb;131(Pt 2):425-37. doi: 10.1093/brain/awm311. Epub 2007 Dec 20.

  • Kaelin-Lang A, Luft AR, Sawaki L, Burstein AH, Sohn YH, Cohen LG. Modulation of human corticomotor excitability by somatosensory input. J Physiol. 2002 Apr 15;540(Pt 2):623-33. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2001.012801.

  • Villafane JH, Silva GB, Chiarotto A, Ragusa OL. Botulinum toxin type A combined with neurodynamic mobilization for upper limb spasticity after stroke: a case report. J Chiropr Med. 2012 Sep;11(3):186-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2012.05.009.

  • Posteraro F, Mazzoleni S, Aliboni S, Cesqui B, Battaglia A, Dario P, Micera S. Robot-mediated therapy for paretic upper limb of chronic patients following neurological injury. J Rehabil Med. 2009 Nov;41(12):976-80. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0403.

  • Daviet JC, Bonan I, Caire JM, Colle F, Damamme L, Froger J, Leblond C, Leger A, Muller F, Simon O, Thiebaut M, Yelnik A. Therapeutic patient education for stroke survivors: Non-pharmacological management. A literature review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2012 Dec;55(9-10):641-56. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2012.08.011. Epub 2012 Sep 7. English, French.

  • Masiero S, Celia A, Rosati G, Armani M. Robotic-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limb after acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Feb;88(2):142-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.032.

  • Invernizzi M, Negrini S, Carda S, Lanzotti L, Cisari C, Baricich A. The value of adding mirror therapy for upper limb motor recovery of subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2013 Jun;49(3):311-7. Epub 2013 Mar 13.

  • Hess G. Synaptic plasticity of local connections in rat motor cortex. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2004;64(2):271-6. doi: 10.55782/ane-2004-1511.

  • Jang SH, You SH, Hallett M, Cho YW, Park CM, Cho SH, Lee HY, Kim TH. Cortical reorganization and associated functional motor recovery after virtual reality in patients with chronic stroke: an experimenter-blind preliminary study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Nov;86(11):2218-23. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.04.015.

  • You SH, Jang SH, Kim YH, Hallett M, Ahn SH, Kwon YH, Kim JH, Lee MY. Virtual reality-induced cortical reorganization and associated locomotor recovery in chronic stroke: an experimenter-blind randomized study. Stroke. 2005 Jun;36(6):1166-71. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000162715.43417.91. Epub 2005 May 12.

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Stroke

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Cerebrovascular DisordersBrain DiseasesCentral Nervous System DiseasesNervous System DiseasesVascular DiseasesCardiovascular Diseases

Study Officials

  • Giovanni Taveggia, MD

    Habilita S.p.A.

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
  • Roberto Casale, MD

    Habilita S.p.A.

    STUDY DIRECTOR

Central Study Contacts

Lorena Salvi, Vice Coord.

CONTACT

Chiara Mulè, Coordinator

CONTACT

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
DOUBLE
Who Masked
INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
MD

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

March 1, 2016

First Posted

March 29, 2016

Study Start

March 1, 2016

Primary Completion

May 1, 2016

Study Completion

May 1, 2016

Last Updated

March 29, 2016

Record last verified: 2016-03

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will share

Locations