Display options
Share it on

Ann Rehabil Med. 2017 Apr;41(2):178-187. doi: 10.5535/arm.2017.41.2.178. Epub 2017 Apr 27.

Feasibility of Rehabilitation Training With a Newly Developed, Portable, Gait Assistive Robot for Balance Function in Hemiplegic Patients.

Annals of rehabilitation medicine

Junhyun Sung, Sehoon Choi, Hyunbae Kim, Gyuhan Lee, Changsoo Han, Younghoon Ji, Dongbin Shin, Seunghoon Hwang, Deokwon Yun, Hyeyoun Jang, Mi Jung Kim

Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Rusk Bundang Rehabilitation Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
  3. Department of Robot Engineering, CIM & Robotics Laboratory, Hanyang University, Ansan, Korea.

PMID: 28503449 PMCID: PMC5426259 DOI: 10.5535/arm.2017.41.2.178

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical feasibility of a newly developed, portable, gait assistive robot (WA-H, 'walking assist for hemiplegia') for improving the balance function of patients with stroke-induced hemiplegia.

METHODS: Thirteen patients underwent 12 weeks of gait training on the treadmill while wearing WA-H for 30 minutes per day, 4 days a week. Patients' balance function was evaluated by the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale (FMAS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT), and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) before and after 6 and 12 weeks of training.

RESULTS: There were no serious complications or clinical difficulties during gait training with WA-H. In three categories of BBS, TUGT, and the balance scale of SPPB, there was a statistically significant improvement at the 6th week and 12th week of gait training with WA-H. In the subscale of balance function of FMAS, there was statistically significant improvement only at the 12th week.

CONCLUSION: Gait training using WA-H demonstrated a beneficial effect on balance function in patients with hemiplegia without a safety issue.

Keywords: Gait; Hemiplegia; Rehabilitation; Robotics; Stroke

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

  1. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002 Sep;16(3):232-40 - PubMed
  2. Clin Rehabil. 2003 Aug;17(5):472-9 - PubMed
  3. Stroke. 2003 Dec;34(12):3006 - PubMed
  4. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Aug;86(8):1641-7 - PubMed
  5. Clin Rehabil. 2007 Jan;21(1):17-27 - PubMed
  6. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2004;7:4888-91 - PubMed
  7. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2006;1:2698-701 - PubMed
  8. Phys Ther. 2008 May;88(5):559-66 - PubMed
  9. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jan;23(1):5-13 - PubMed
  10. PM R. 2009 Jun;1(6):516-23 - PubMed
  11. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012 Mar;48(1):111-21 - PubMed
  12. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Jun;94(6):1080-7 - PubMed
  13. Funct Neurol. 2014 Apr-Jun;29(2):139-41 - PubMed
  14. J Orthop Translat. 2015 Oct 17;5:26-37 - PubMed
  15. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1993;30(2):210-23 - PubMed

Publication Types