It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
End-effector (EE) and exoskeleton (Exo) robots have not been directly compared previously. The present study aimed to directly compare EE and Exo robots in chronic stroke patients with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment. This single-blinded, randomised controlled trial included 38 patients with stroke who were admitted to the rehabilitation hospital. The patients were equally divided into EE and Exo groups. Baseline characteristics, including sex, age, stroke type, brain lesion side (left/right), stroke duration, Fugl–Meyer Assessment (FMA)–Upper Extremity score, and Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) score, were assessed. Additionally, impairment level (FMA, motor status score), activity (WMFT), and participation (stroke impact scale [SIS]) were evaluated. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. After the intervention, improvements were significantly better in the EE group with regard to activity and participation (WMFT–Functional ability rating scale, WMFT–Time, and SIS–Participation). There was no intervention-related adverse event. The EE robot intervention is better than the Exo robot intervention with regard to activity and participation among chronic stroke patients with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment. Further research is needed to confirm this novel finding.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Seoul, Republic of Korea (GRID:grid.452940.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0647 2447); Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Graduate School of Hanyang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea (GRID:grid.49606.3d) (ISNI:0000 0001 1364 9317)
2 Translational Research Center for Rehabilitation Robots, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Seoul, Republic of Korea (GRID:grid.452940.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0647 2447)
3 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Seoul, Republic of Korea (GRID:grid.452940.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0647 2447)
4 Department of Law, Hanyang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea (GRID:grid.49606.3d) (ISNI:0000 0001 1364 9317)
5 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea (GRID:grid.49606.3d) (ISNI:0000 0001 1364 9317)
6 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Seoul, Republic of Korea (GRID:grid.452940.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0647 2447); Translational Research Center for Rehabilitation Robots, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Seoul, Republic of Korea (GRID:grid.452940.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0647 2447)