StrokeNCT04162197
Efficacy of End-Effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training Combined With Robotic Balance Training in Subacute Stroke Patients
A study testing GEO and GEO and HUNOVA in people with Stroke, run by Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETS at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
Over the last years, the introduction of robotic technologies in gait rehabilitation of stroke patients has aroused great interest. Some studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of robot-assisted training compared to conventional gait rehabilitation in patients with subacute stroke but no studies seem to… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 85 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Stroke
- What is being tested?
- GEO and GEO and HUNOVA
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 18 Nov 2019to 2 Mar 2020
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 85 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- first cerebral stroke
- 1 month up to 6 months post the acute event (subacute patients)
- age between 18-85 years
- ability to fit into the end-effector footplates
- no significant limitation of joint range of motion
- ability to tolerate upright standing for 60 seconds
Show all 9Show fewer
- ability to walk unassisted or with little assistance
- ability to give written consent
- compliance with the study procedures
Who cannot join
- contractures of the hip, knee, or ankle joints that might limit the range of motion during gait
- medical issue that precludes full weight bearing and ambulation (e.g. orthopaedic injuries, pain, severe osteoporosis, or severe spasticity)
- cognitive and/or communicative disability (e.g. due to brain injury): inability to understand the instructions required for the study
- cardiac pathologies, anxiety or psychosis that might interfere with the use of the equipment or testing
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Efficacy of End-Effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training Combined With Robotic Balance Training in Subacute Stroke Patients: Clinical, Balance and Gait Outcomes
Over the last years, the introduction of robotic technologies in gait rehabilitation of stroke patients has aroused great interest. Some studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of robot-assisted training compared to conventional gait rehabilitation in patients with subacute stroke but no studies seem to investigate the effects of a combined robotic treatment (gait plus balance).
The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a combined gait and balance robotic rehabilitation compared robotic gait training alone.
Read the detailed description
Stroke is not only the third cause of death after cardiovascular disease and cancer, but also the first cause of disability in the world with a significant impact on individuals, their families and finances. Post-stroke disability involves mobility and balance, muscle strength, control of movement, and gait pattern functions. Although the majority of stroke patients learns to walk independently by 6 months after stroke, gait and balance problems persist through the chronic stage and may have a significant impact on patients' quality of life. Accordingly, the restoration and improvement of walking functions is a primary concern to obtain independence in daily life. For this reason, gait recovery is a realist goal in the rehabilitation of almost all patients with stroke. The recovery of a more fluid, safe and correct execution of motor tasks such as gait and stair climbing are a prerequisite for the patients to become autonomous in the activities of daily living.
Over the last years, the introduction of robotic technologies in gait rehabilitation of stroke patients has aroused great interest. Some studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of robot-assisted training compared to conventional gait rehabilitation in patients with subacute stroke. The main results were obtained using robotic exoskeletons or a treadmill training with partial body weight support and only a few studies used an end-effector device. Preliminary studies have shown that end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) has produced promising effects on motor and functional outcomes in chronic and subacute strokes patients comparing with conventional treatment. Moreover, safe gait needs a continuous dynamic balance than it is possible that in gait robotic rehabilitation could be included a rehabilitation treatment of static and dynamic balance with a robotic proprioceptive platform. The hypothesis of the study is that a combined robotic treatment (gait plus balance) could produce more effects than just one robotic gait training.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of gait and balance robotic rehabilitation in subacute stroke patients in terms of clinical outcomes, balance measures and gait kinematics, comparing them with robotic gait training alone.
The patients following first ever stroke in sub-acute phase will be recruited and assessed both clinically and instrumentally (Gait Analysis and Balance evaluation) at baseline (T0), after 12 sessions (T1) and at the end of the training program (24 sessions: T2). The patients will be randomized into 2 groups and will conduct two different types of rehabilitation training: one group will perform, gait training using an end-effector robotic device for RAGT (Gait Group, GG); and the other group will receive a combined robotic treatment program with the same end-effector robotic system and a robotic proprioceptive platform (Balance Group, GHG). The rehabilitation program of both groups will be combined with conventional physiotherapy.
- Conditions
- Stroke
- Being tested
- GEO, GEO and HUNOVA
- Keywords
- Stroke, Robotics, Gait Training, Rehabilitation, Balance, Functional Recovery, Robot-Assisted Gait Training
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
GEODevice
Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) The Robotic Group (RG) performs a Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) using an end-effector robotic device (G-EO system-Reha Technology-Olten, Switzerland).
GEO and HUNOVADevice
Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) and Balance Training. The Balance Group (GHG) performs a Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) using an end-effector robotic device (G-EO system-Reha Technology-Olten, Switzerland) and a Balance training using a robotic proprioceptive platform (Hunova - Movendo Technology, Italy).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental 1: Gait Group (GG) | Experimental | Gait Group (GG) will perform, in addition to conventional therapy, gait training using only an end effector robotic device for Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT), 3 times/week for 12 sessions/month. During the training, patients will be asked to walk, at a varying speed, for 45 minutes and a partial Body Weight Support (BWS). Participants will start with 30-40% of BWS and an initial speed of 1.5 km/h; increasing to a maximum of between 2.2 and 2.5 km/ h and reducing the initial BWS to 15%. The therapist will provide any help during sessions if required. Over 45 minutes, the patient simulates a minimum of 300 steps; patients could rest during the session, though they will be asked to walk continuously for a minimum of 5 minutes during each session. Receives: Device: GEO |
| Experimental 2: Balance Group (GHG) | Experimental | Balance Group (GHG) will receive, in addition to conventional therapy, a combined robotic treatment program with the same end-effector robotic system and a robotic proprioceptive platform, 3 times/week for 12 sessions/month. The time of the single session (45 minutes) is dived in gait training and balance training. The balance training will consist in static and dynamic exercises during sitting and standing position, dual-task exercises and exercises aimed to improve trunk control. Receives: Device: GEO and HUNOVA |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Berg Balance Scale (BBS)
The Berg Balance Scale is a widely used clinical test of a person's static and dynamic balance abilities. The test takes 15-20 minutes and comprises a set of 14 simple balance related tasks, ranging from standing up from a sitting position, to standing on one foot. The degree of success in achieving each task is given a score of zero (unable) to four (independent), and the final measure is the sum of all of the scores.
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Secondary outcomes (13)
Change in Motricity Index (MI)
The MI aims to evaluate lower limb motor impairment after stroke, administrated on both sides.
Items to assess the lower limbs are 3, scoring from 0 to 33 each: (1) ankle dorsiflexion with foot in a plantar flexedposition (2) knee extension with the foot unsupported and the knee at 90° (3) hip flexion with the hip at 90° moving the knee as close as possible to the chin. (no movement: 0, palpable flicker but no movement: 9, movement but not against gravity :14, movement against gravity movement against gravity: 19, movement against resistance: 25, normal:33).
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)
The MAS is a 6 point ordinal scale used for grading hypertonia in individuals with neurological diagnoses. A score of 0 on the scale indicates no increase in tone while a score of 4 indicates rigidity. Tone is scored by passively moving the individual's limb and assessing the amount of resistance to movement felt by the examiner.
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Tinetti Scale Balance (TIN-B)
Scales to measure activity ICF domain.
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Functional Ambulation Classification (FAC)
Functional Ambulation Classification is a functional walking test that evaluates ambulation ability. This 6-point scale assesses ambulation status by determining how much human support the patient requires when walking, regardless of whether or not they use a personal assistive device.
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in 10 Meter Walk Test (10MWT)
This test will assess the patient's speed during gait. Patients will be asked to walk at their preferred maximum and safe speed. Patients will be positioned 1 meter before the start line and instructed to walk 10 meters, and pass the end line approximately 1 meter after. The distance before and after the course are meant to minimize the effect of acceleration and deceleration. Time will be measured using a stopwatch and recorded to the one hundredth of a second (ex: 2.15 s). The test will be recorded 3 times, with adequate rests between them. The average of the 3 times should be recorded.
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Trunk Control Test (TCT)
The TCT assesses the motor impairment in stroke patients and it's correlated with eventual walking ability. Testing is done with the patient lying on a bed: (1) roll to weak side. (2) roll to strong side. (3) balance in sitting position on the edge of the bed with the feet off the ground for at least 30. (4) sit up from lying down. Total score: 0-100.
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Time Up And Go (TUG)
The Time Up And Go is a test used to assess mobility, balance, and walking in people with balance impairments. The subject must stand up from a chair (which should not be leant against a wall), walk a distance of 3 meters, turn around, walk back to the chair and sit down - all performed as quickly and as safely as possible. Time will be measured using a chronometer.
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Walking Handicap Scale (WHS)
The Walking Handicap Scale is a classification of 6 functional walking categories, considered as a participation category of the ICF because of its 3 items referred to community ambulation. The score ranges from 1 to 6, and do higher values represent a better outcome.
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Ambulation Index (AI)
The AI is a rating scale developed to assess mobility by evaluating the time and degree of assistance required to walk 25 feet. Scores range from 0 (asymptomatic and fully active) to 10 (bedridden). The patient is asked to walk a marked 25-foot course as quickly and safely as possible. The examiner records the time and type of assistance (e.g., cane, walker, crutches) needed.
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)
The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is the simplest and most commonly used numeric scale to rate the pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain).
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Neuropathic Pain Screen (ID PAIN)
The Neuropathic Pain Screen is used to evaluate presence of neuropathic pain. Ask the older adult the questions below and score as noted. It is a numeric scale to rate the pain from -1 to 5; higher scores are more indicative of pain with a neuropathic component. A score of 3 or higher indicates likely presence of neuropathic pain and justifies a more detailed evaluation. If the older adult has more than one painful area, they are to consider the one area that is most relevant to them. Conditions that might have a neuropathic pain component include diabetic or peripheral neuropathy, back pain, post-herpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, leg/foot pain, large joint pain, and fibromyalgia.
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Barthel Scale/Index (BI)
The Barthel Scale/Index (BI) is an ordinal scale used to measure performance in activities of daily living (ADL). Ten variables describing ADL and mobility are scored, a higher number being a reflection of greater ability to function independently following hospital discharge. Time taken and physical assistance required to perform each item are used in determining the assigned value of each item. The Barthel Index measures the degree of assistance required by an individual on 10 items of mobility and self care ADL.
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Six-Minute Walking Test (6MWT)
The 6MWT measures the distance a subject covers during an indoor gait on a flat, hard surface in 6 minutes, using assistive devices, as necessary. The test is a reliable and valid evaluation of functional exercise capacity and is used as a sub-maximal test of aerobic capacity and endurance. The minimal detectable change in distance for people with sub-acute stroke is 60.98 meters. The 6MWT is a patient self-paced walk test and assesses the level of functional capacity. Patients are allowed to stop and rest during the test. However, the timer does not stop. If the patient is unable to complete the test, the time is stopped at that moment. The missing time and the reason of the stop are recorded. This test will be administered while wearing a pulse oximeter to monitor heart rate and oxygen saturation, also integrated with Borg scale to assess dyspnea.
Measured: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Nov 2019
- Study start18 Nov 2019
- Primary completion2 Mar 2020
- Study completion2 Mar 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (11)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for StrokeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETSThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETS
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Irene Giovanna Aprile, Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETS
- Investigators
- Irene Aprile, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04162197
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- FDG_GEOHUN
- Status last verified
- Jul 2020
- First submitted
- 17 Sep 2019
- Last updated
- 14 Jul 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Aprile I, Iacovelli C, Goffredo M, Cruciani A, Galli M, Simbolotti C, Pecchioli C, Padua L, Galafate D, Pournajaf S, Franceschini M. Efficacy of end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training in subacute stroke patients: Clinical and gait outcomes from a pilot bi-centre study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2019;45(2):201-212. doi: 10.3233/NRE-192778.
PubMed 31498139Goffredo M, Iacovelli C, Russo E, Pournajaf S, Di Blasi C, Galafate D, Pellicciari L, Agosti M, Filoni S, Aprile I, Franceschini M. Stroke Gait Rehabilitation: A Comparison of End-Effector, Overground Exoskeleton, and Conventional Gait Training. Applied Sciences 9, 2627, 2019. doi:10.3390/app9132627
Aprile I, Iacovelli C, Padua L, Galafate D, Criscuolo S, Gabbani D, Cruciani A, Germanotta M, Di Sipio E, De Pisi F, Franceschini M. Efficacy of Robotic-Assisted Gait Training in chronic stroke patients: Preliminary results of an Italian bi-centre study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2017;41(4):775-782. doi: 10.3233/NRE-172156.
PubMed 28946585Cattaneo D, Carpinella I, Aprile I, Prosperini L, Montesano A, Jonsdottir J. Comparison of upright balance in stroke, Parkinson and multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2016 May;133(5):346-54. doi: 10.1111/ane.12466. Epub 2015 Aug 3.
PubMed 26234280Kim HY, Shin JH, Yang SP, Shin MA, Lee SH. Robot-assisted gait training for balance and lower extremity function in patients with infratentorial stroke: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Jul 29;16(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12984-019-0553-5.
PubMed 31358017Swinnen E, Beckwee D, Meeusen R, Baeyens JP, Kerckhofs E. Does robot-assisted gait rehabilitation improve balance in stroke patients? A systematic review. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2014 Mar-Apr;21(2):87-100. doi: 10.1310/tsr2102-87.
PubMed 24710969Eng JJ, Tang PF. Gait training strategies to optimize walking ability in people with stroke: a synthesis of the evidence. Expert Rev Neurother. 2007 Oct;7(10):1417-36. doi: 10.1586/14737175.7.10.1417.
PubMed 17939776Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009 Aug;8(8):741-54. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4.
PubMed 19608100Mehrholz J, Thomas S, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M, Elsner B. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 May 10;5(5):CD006185. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub4.
PubMed 28488268Mao YR, Lo WL, Lin Q, Li L, Xiao X, Raghavan P, Huang DF. The Effect of Body Weight Support Treadmill Training on Gait Recovery, Proximal Lower Limb Motor Pattern, and Balance in Patients with Subacute Stroke. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:175719. doi: 10.1155/2015/175719. Epub 2015 Nov 16.
PubMed 26649295Davis RB, Ounpuu S, Tyburski D, Gage JR. A gait analysis data collection and reduction technique. Hum MovSci 1991; 10: 575-587.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Jul 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Efficacy of End-Effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training Combined With Robotic Balance Training in Subacute Stroke Patients: Clinical, Balance and Gait Outcomes
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04162197
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- FDG_GEOHUN
- Conditions
- Stroke
- Keywords
- Stroke, Robotics, Gait Training, Rehabilitation, Balance, Functional Recovery, Robot-Assisted Gait Training
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETSUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 18 Nov 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 2 Mar 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 2 Mar 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 14 Nov 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Over the last years, the introduction of robotic technologies in gait rehabilitation of stroke patients has aroused great interest. Some studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of robot-assisted training compared to conventional gait rehabilitation in patients with subacute stroke but no studies seem to investigate the effects of a combined robotic treatment (gait plus balance).
The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a combined gait and balance robotic rehabilitation compared robotic gait training alone.
Detailed description
Stroke is not only the third cause of death after cardiovascular disease and cancer, but also the first cause of disability in the world with a significant impact on individuals, their families and finances. Post-stroke disability involves mobility and balance, muscle strength, control of movement, and gait pattern functions. Although the majority of stroke patients learns to walk independently by 6 months after stroke, gait and balance problems persist through the chronic stage and may have a significant impact on patients' quality of life. Accordingly, the restoration and improvement of walking functions is a primary concern to obtain independence in daily life. For this reason, gait recovery is a realist goal in the rehabilitation of almost all patients with stroke. The recovery of a more fluid, safe and correct execution of motor tasks such as gait and stair climbing are a prerequisite for the patients to become autonomous in the activities of daily living.
Over the last years, the introduction of robotic technologies in gait rehabilitation of stroke patients has aroused great interest. Some studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of robot-assisted training compared to conventional gait rehabilitation in patients with subacute stroke. The main results were obtained using robotic exoskeletons or a treadmill training with partial body weight support and only a few studies used an end-effector device. Preliminary studies have shown that end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) has produced promising effects on motor and functional outcomes in chronic and subacute strokes patients comparing with conventional treatment. Moreover, safe gait needs a continuous dynamic balance than it is possible that in gait robotic rehabilitation could be included a rehabilitation treatment of static and dynamic balance with a robotic proprioceptive platform. The hypothesis of the study is that a combined robotic treatment (gait plus balance) could produce more effects than just one robotic gait training.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of gait and balance robotic rehabilitation in subacute stroke patients in terms of clinical outcomes, balance measures and gait kinematics, comparing them with robotic gait training alone.
The patients following first ever stroke in sub-acute phase will be recruited and assessed both clinically and instrumentally (Gait Analysis and Balance evaluation) at baseline (T0), after 12 sessions (T1) and at the end of the training program (24 sessions: T2). The patients will be randomized into 2 groups and will conduct two different types of rehabilitation training: one group will perform, gait training using an end-effector robotic device for RAGT (Gait Group, GG); and the other group will receive a combined robotic treatment program with the same end-effector robotic system and a robotic proprioceptive platform (Balance Group, GHG). The rehabilitation program of both groups will be combined with conventional physiotherapy.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental 1: Gait Group (GG) | Experimental | Device: GEOGait Group (GG) will perform, in addition to conventional therapy, gait training using only an end effector robotic device for Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT), 3 times/week for 12 sessions/month. During the training, patients will be asked to walk, at a varying speed, for 45 minutes and a partial Body Weight Support (BWS). Participants will start with 30-40% of BWS and an initial speed of 1.5 km/h; increasing to a maximum of between 2.2 and 2.5 km/ h and reducing the initial BWS to 15%. The therapist will provide any help during sessions if required. Over 45 minutes, the patient simulates a minimum of 300 steps; patients could rest during the session, though they will be asked to walk continuously for a minimum of 5 minutes during each session. |
| Experimental 2: Balance Group (GHG) | Experimental | Device: GEO and HUNOVABalance Group (GHG) will receive, in addition to conventional therapy, a combined robotic treatment program with the same end-effector robotic system and a robotic proprioceptive platform, 3 times/week for 12 sessions/month. The time of the single session (45 minutes) is dived in gait training and balance training. The balance training will consist in static and dynamic exercises during sitting and standing position, dual-task exercises and exercises aimed to improve trunk control. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 85 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (9 listed)
- first cerebral stroke
- 1 month up to 6 months post the acute event (subacute patients)
- age between 18-85 years
- ability to fit into the end-effector footplates
- no significant limitation of joint range of motion
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- contractures of the hip, knee, or ankle joints that might limit the range of motion during gait
- medical issue that precludes full weight bearing and ambulation (e.g. orthopaedic injuries, pain, severe osteoporosis, or severe spasticity)
- cognitive and/or communicative disability (e.g. due to brain injury): inability to understand the instructions required for the study
- cardiac pathologies, anxiety or psychosis that might interfere with the use of the equipment or testing
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| GEORobot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) The Robotic Group (RG) performs a Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) using an end-effector robotic device (G-EO system-Reha Technology-Olten, Switzerland). | Device | Experimental 1: Gait Group (GG) |
| GEO and HUNOVARobot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) and Balance Training. The Balance Group (GHG) performs a Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) using an end-effector robotic device (G-EO system-Reha Technology-Olten, Switzerland) and a Balance training using a robotic proprioceptive platform (Hunova - Movendo Technology, Italy). | Device | Experimental 2: Balance Group (GHG) |
Primary outcome
Change in Berg Balance Scale (BBS)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
The Berg Balance Scale is a widely used clinical test of a person's static and dynamic balance abilities. The test takes 15-20 minutes and comprises a set of 14 simple balance related tasks, ranging from standing up from a sitting position, to standing on one foot. The degree of success in achieving each task is given a score of zero (unable) to four (independent), and the final measure is the sum of all of the scores.
13 secondary outcomes
Change in Motricity Index (MI)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Tinetti Scale Balance (TIN-B)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Functional Ambulation Classification (FAC)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in 10 Meter Walk Test (10MWT)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Trunk Control Test (TCT)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Time Up And Go (TUG)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Walking Handicap Scale (WHS)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Ambulation Index (AI)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Neuropathic Pain Screen (ID PAIN)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Barthel Scale/Index (BI)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Change in Six-Minute Walking Test (6MWT)
Time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Jul 2020.
- Background: PubMed 31498139Aprile I, Iacovelli C, Goffredo M, Cruciani A, Galli M, Simbolotti C, Pecchioli C, Padua L, Galafate D, Pournajaf S, Franceschini M. Efficacy of end-effector Robot-Assisted Gait Training in subacute stroke patients: Clinical and gait outcomes from a pilot bi-centre study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2019;45(2):201-212. doi: 10.3233/NRE-192778.
- BackgroundGoffredo M, Iacovelli C, Russo E, Pournajaf S, Di Blasi C, Galafate D, Pellicciari L, Agosti M, Filoni S, Aprile I, Franceschini M. Stroke Gait Rehabilitation: A Comparison of End-Effector, Overground Exoskeleton, and Conventional Gait Training. Applied Sciences 9, 2627, 2019. doi:10.3390/app9132627
- Results publication: PubMed 28946585Aprile I, Iacovelli C, Padua L, Galafate D, Criscuolo S, Gabbani D, Cruciani A, Germanotta M, Di Sipio E, De Pisi F, Franceschini M. Efficacy of Robotic-Assisted Gait Training in chronic stroke patients: Preliminary results of an Italian bi-centre study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2017;41(4):775-782. doi: 10.3233/NRE-172156.
- Results publication: PubMed 26234280Cattaneo D, Carpinella I, Aprile I, Prosperini L, Montesano A, Jonsdottir J. Comparison of upright balance in stroke, Parkinson and multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2016 May;133(5):346-54. doi: 10.1111/ane.12466. Epub 2015 Aug 3.
- Results publication: PubMed 31358017Kim HY, Shin JH, Yang SP, Shin MA, Lee SH. Robot-assisted gait training for balance and lower extremity function in patients with infratentorial stroke: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Jul 29;16(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12984-019-0553-5.
- Results publication: PubMed 24710969Swinnen E, Beckwee D, Meeusen R, Baeyens JP, Kerckhofs E. Does robot-assisted gait rehabilitation improve balance in stroke patients? A systematic review. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2014 Mar-Apr;21(2):87-100. doi: 10.1310/tsr2102-87.
- Results publication: PubMed 17939776Eng JJ, Tang PF. Gait training strategies to optimize walking ability in people with stroke: a synthesis of the evidence. Expert Rev Neurother. 2007 Oct;7(10):1417-36. doi: 10.1586/14737175.7.10.1417.
- Results publication: PubMed 19608100Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009 Aug;8(8):741-54. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4.
- Results publication: PubMed 28488268Mehrholz J, Thomas S, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M, Elsner B. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 May 10;5(5):CD006185. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub4.
- Results publication: PubMed 26649295Mao YR, Lo WL, Lin Q, Li L, Xiao X, Raghavan P, Huang DF. The Effect of Body Weight Support Treadmill Training on Gait Recovery, Proximal Lower Limb Motor Pattern, and Balance in Patients with Subacute Stroke. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:175719. doi: 10.1155/2015/175719. Epub 2015 Nov 16.
- Results publicationDavis RB, Ounpuu S, Tyburski D, Gage JR. A gait analysis data collection and reduction technique. Hum MovSci 1991; 10: 575-587.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Stroke
Not yet recruiting
Temporal Interference Stimulation for Upper-Limb Motor Recovery in Early Subacute Stroke
Acute Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
ELATE Study: Evaluating Large-vessel Acute Thrombectomy in Extended Time Window
Acute Ichemic Stroke
Recruiting
Web-Based Tele-Rehabilitation Using Action Observation and Mirror Therapy for Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Stroke, Upper Extremity Paresis
Recruiting
Early Motor-Cognitive Integrative Training on Cognitive and Motor Performance in Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Subarachnoid Aneurysm Hemorrhage
Not yet recruiting
Selective Intra-Arterial Hypothermia After Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion
Acute Ischemic Stroke, Basilar Artery Occlusion
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Irene Aprile, MD, PhD principal investigator
IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing GEO and GEO and HUNOVA in people with Stroke, run by Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETS at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 9 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Jul 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (time frame: Baseline (T0), Session 12 (4 weeks) (T1), Session 24 (8 weeks ) (T2)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04162197, which also lists 11 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Jul 2020.