Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
    Users Online: 137
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 143-147

The effectiveness of robotic-assisted gait training on walking speed for stroke survivors: Meta-analysis


Department of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Faisal Y Asiri
Department of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, P. O. Box: 9070, Guraiger, Abha 61413
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/sjhs.sjhs_16_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: Most stroke survivors have walking difficulties after the event, so regaining the ability to walk again is the main goal of rehabilitation intervention. The robotic-assisted device is widely used in rehabilitation settings and may have an advantage over conventional physical therapy in regaining walking capacity. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to investigate whether the robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) alone improves walking capacity (e.g., gait velocity) compared with conventional gait training (e.g., over-ground gait training) in stroke survivors. Methods: An electronic Medline database (e.g., PubMed, Ovid, ISI of knowledge) search was done to identify trials. The searching process was limited to randomized clinical trials and recent studies from 2000 to 2017. All trials that did not use conventional physical therapy as a control group and did not use RAGT as an intervention were excluded from the study. Results: A total of 4 studies met our inclusion criteria, and they were included in the meta-analysis with 182 participants. Convention physical therapy training did significantly better than robotic-assisted training P = 0.003. Therefore, the conventional physical therapy group regained 30% (confidence interval 19%–41%) more in gait velocity than the robotic-assisted gait group. Conclusion: That robotic-assisted training alone did not show any improvement in gait velocity compared with regular physical therapy training. However, further research may address the use of robotic-assisted devices plus conventional physical therapy to compare the combined benefits with those of conventional physical therapy alone.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed763    
    Printed182    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded149    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal