It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Determine the effects of an integrated rehabilitation protocol, including botulinum toxin and conventional rehabilitation exercise plus end-effector (EE) robotic training for functional recovery of the upper limb (UL) compared to training with the robot alone in post-chronic stroke patients with mild to severe spasticity, compared to training with the robot alone.
Methods
In this prospective, observational case-control study, stroke patients were allocated into 2 groups: robot group (RG, patients who underwent robotic treatment with EE) and robot-toxin group (RTG, patients who in addition have carried out the injection of botulinum toxin for UL recovery). All patients were assessed by Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Motricity Index (MI), modified Ashworth scale (MAS), numeric rating scale (NRS), Box and Block Test (BBT), Frenchay Arm Test (FAT), and Barthel Index (BI) at baseline (T0), T1 (end of treatment), and T2 (3 months of follow-up).
Results
Forty-four patients were included and analyzed (21RG; 23RTG). From the analysis between groups, the results suggested how there was a statistically significant difference in favor of RTG, specifically ΔT0-T1 and ΔT0-T2 for B&B p = 0.009 and p = 0.035; ΔT0-T1 and ΔT0-T2 for FAT with p = 0.016 and p = 0.031; ΔT0-T1 for MAS shoulder p = 0.016; ΔT0-T1 and ΔT0-T2 with p = 0.010 and p = 0.005 for MAS elbow; and ΔT0-T1 and ΔT0-T2 with p = 0.001 and p = 0.013 for MAS wrist.
Conclusion
Our results suggest, in line with the literature, a good efficacy in the reduction of spasticity and in the improvement of the function of the UL, with the reduction of pain, adopting a rehabilitation protocol integrated with BoTN, robot-assisted training, and traditional physiotherapy.
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 G. D’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Unit of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Oral Medical Science and Biotechnology (DSMOB), Chieti, Italy (GRID:grid.412451.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2181 4941)
2 Sapienza University of Rome, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Unit, Department of Anatomical and Histological Sciences, Legal Medicine and Orthopedics, Rome, Italy (GRID:grid.7841.a)
3 Hospital of Popoli, U.O.C. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Pescara, Italy (GRID:grid.412451.7)
4 University of Study of Urbino Carlo Bo, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Urbino, Italy (GRID:grid.412451.7)
5 G. D’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Unit of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Oral Medical Science and Biotechnology (DSMOB), Chieti, Italy (GRID:grid.412451.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2181 4941); IRCSS Centro Neurolesi “Bonino Pulejo”, Messina, Italy (GRID:grid.419419.0)