This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 38/2/349    most recent 01.STR.0000254607.48765.cbv1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Husemann, B. Articles by Koenig, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Husemann, B. Articles by Koenig, E. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Related Collections Clinical Studies Rehabilitation, Stroke Related Article

(Stroke. 2007;38:349.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Effects of Locomotion Training With Assistance of a Robot-Driven Gait Orthosis in Hemiparetic Patients After Stroke

A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

Britta Husemann, MD; Friedemann Müller, MD; Carmen Krewer, MSc; Silke Heller, PT Eberhardt Koenig, MD

From the Neurology Hospital Bad Aibling Germany, Bad Aibling, Germany.

Correspondence to Britta Husemann, MD, Neurology Hospital Bad Aibling Germany, Kolbermoorer Str. 72; 83043 Bad Aibling, Germany. E-mail husemann-britta{at}web.de

Background and Purpose— The success of gait rehabilitation after stroke depends on active walking exercises. However, the disabling after-effects of stroke often make such exercises impossible at the onset of therapy. To facilitate treadmill training of paraparetic patients, a robot-driven gait orthosis (Lokomat) was developed. We investigated the effects of the Lokomat when used with hemiparetic patients.

Methods— The authors conducted a randomized, controlled pilot study of 30 acute stroke survivors. The treatment group received 30 minutes of robotic training daily and the control group 30 minutes of conventional physiotherapy daily in addition to 30 minutes of conventional physiotherapy for each group. Outcome measures were independence of gait, gait speed, gait parameters, and body tissue composition.

Results— After 4 weeks of therapy, the walking ability of the Lokomat group and the control group expressed as the functional ambulation classification was significantly improved. The functional ambulation category (median± interquartile range) was at baseline 0±0 in control and 0±1 in the therapy group and increased after therapy to 1±3 in both groups significantly (P=0.01). There was no significant difference in gain of these parameters between the groups. The Lokomat group had a significantly longer single stance phase (sec; mean±SEM) on the paretic leg when walking on the floor. At baseline, it was 0.19±0.17 and after therapy 0.49±0.07 (P=0.014). The control group had increased their body weight approximately 1.33±1.40 kg (mean±SEM; P=0.046), mostly as fat mass, whereas the Lokomat group had lost fat mass approximately –2.9±1.0 kg (mean±SEM; P=0.016) and increased their muscle mass approximately 3.36±1.4 kg (mean± SEM; P=0.031).

Conclusions— This pilot study indicates that Lokomat therapy is a promising intervention for gait rehabilitation. Although there was no difference between groups in gain of functional scores, the Lokomat group showed an advantage of robotic training over conventional physiotherapy in improvement of gait abnormality and body tissue composition.

Key Words: gait • rehabilitation • stroke

Related Article:

The Thr715Pro Polymorphism of the P-Selectin Gene Is Not Associated With Ischemic Stroke Risk

Julia Ferrari, Sandra Rieger, Georg Endler, Stefan Greisenegger, Marion Funk, Thomas Scholze, Wilfried Lang, Wolfgang Lalouschek, and Christine Mannhalter
Stroke 2007 38: 395-397. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A Meyer-Heim, C Ammann-Reiffer, A Schmartz, J Schafer, F H Sennhauser, F Heinen, B Knecht, E Dabrowski, and I Borggraefe Improvement of walking abilities after robotic-assisted locomotion training in children with cerebral palsy Arch. Dis. Child., August 1, 2009; 94(8): 615 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. U. Blicher and J. F. Nielsen Cortical and Spinal Excitability Changes After Robotic Gait Training in Healthy Participants Neurorehabil Neural Repair, February 1, 2009; 23(2): 143 - 149. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Hidler, D. Nichols, M. Pelliccio, K. Brady, D. D. Campbell, J. H. Kahn, and T. G. Hornby Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Lokomat in Subacute Stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair, January 1, 2009; 23(1): 5 - 13. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Banz, M. Bolliger, G. Colombo, V. Dietz, and L. Lunenburger Computerized Visual Feedback: An Adjunct to Robotic-Assisted Gait Training Physical Therapy, October 1, 2008; 88(10): 1135 - 1145. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-P. Regnaux, K. Saremi, J. Marehbian, B. Bussel, and B. H. Dobkin An Accelerometry-Based Comparison of 2 Robotic Assistive Devices for Treadmill Training of Gait Neurorehabil Neural Repair, July 1, 2008; 22(4): 348 - 354. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. G. Hornby, D. D. Campbell, J. H. Kahn, T. Demott, J. L. Moore, and H. R. Roth Enhanced Gait-Related Improvements After Therapist- Versus Robotic-Assisted Locomotor Training in Subjects With Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Study Stroke, June 1, 2008; 39(6): 1786 - 1792. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Mayr, M. Kofler, E. Quirbach, H. Matzak, K. Frohlich, and L. Saltuari Prospective, Blinded, Randomized Crossover Study of Gait Rehabilitation in Stroke Patients Using the Lokomat Gait Orthosis Neurorehabil Neural Repair, July 1, 2007; 21(4): 307 - 314. [Abstract] [PDF]