Issue №5-21, 2022

https://doi.org/10.38025/2078-1962-2022-21-5-87-95

Zero-Gravity Robotic-Assisted Locomotion Simulator in Rehabilitation: a Prospective Randomized Clinical Study of 30 Spinal Trauma Sequelae Patients

View article (Download PDF file)



Download XML file

1 ORCIDPolina V. Tkachenko, 1 ORCIDVadim D. Daminov

1 National Medical and Surgical Center named after N.I. Pirogov, Moscow, Russian Federation


ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION. According to the WHO, between 250,000 and 500,000 people are affected every year with spinal cord injury (SCI) around the world. The number of disabled people as a result of spinal cord injury in Russia is estimated to be over 250,000 and is increasing due to injury rate growth and survival rate improvement of patients in the acute and long-term periods of traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI).

AIM. To justify the efficacious and safe use of a zero-gravity robotic simulator for a locomotor therapy in the complex rehabilitation of patients with SCI and compare this therapeutic approach with conventional motor rehabilitation programs using other robotic mechanotherapy techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS. Neurological and functional disorders were analyzed in 30 patients with SCI on the basis of clinical examination and electromyography (EMG) findings. All the patients were classified into an intervention group and a control group by a sequential randomization. The rehabilitation programs for the intervention and control groups were alike, except for robotic mechanotherapy.

RESULTS. A significant positive dynamic change in motor functions according to the ASIA Impairment scale was noted in the intervention group, in which 2 patients moved up to a higher level. The EMG data showed a significant difference between the groups in favor of the intervention one. A significant difference in postural function improvement was found between the intervention and control groups in a seated position. The rehabilitation of patients from the intervention group engaged the axial muscles, promoting an increase in strength and better control of the trunk muscles. A significant spasticity decrease and changes in the functional status of the patients were observed in both groups. The patients’ ability to perform normal daily activities was registered to improve.

CONCLUSION. The study demonstrated that robotic musculoskeletal training in zero-gravity conditions is safe and effective in complex rehabilitation of patients with SCI and improves motor skills, self-care and postural function. A significant correlation was found between neurological and functional changes, indicative of a restorative concept of the new therapeutic modality. Further studies with increased capacity are reasonable.


KEYWORDS: weightlessness, robotic-assisted device, electrical stimulation, rehabilitation, spinal cord injury

For citation: Tkachenko P.V., Daminov V.D. Zero-Gravity Robotic-Assisted Locomotion Simulator in Rehabilitation: a Prospective Randomized Clinical Study of 30 Spinal Trauma Sequelae Patients. Bulletin of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2022; 21 (5): 87-95. https://doi.org/10.38025/2078-1962-2022-21-5-87-95



References:

  1. World Health Organization. Spinal cord injury. 2013. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/spinal-cord-injury (accessed 03.06.2022)
  2. Alizadeh A., Dyck S.M., Karimi-Abdolrezaee S. Traumatic spinal cord injury: an overview of pathophysiology, models and acute injury mechanisms. Frontiers in Neurology. 2019; (10): 282 p. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00282
  3. Mekki M., Delgado A.D., Fry A., Putrino D., Huang V. Robotic rehabilitation and spinal cord injury: a narrative review. Neurotherapeutics. 2018; 15(3): 604-617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-018-0642-3
  4. Donovan J., Snider B., Miller A., Kirshblum S. Walking after Spinal Cord Injury: Current Clinical Approaches and Future Directions. Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports. 2020; 8(3): 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-020-00277-1
  5. Schwartz I., Sajina A., Neeb M., Fisher I., Katz-Luerer M., Meiner Z. (2011). Locomotor training using a robotic device in patients with subacute spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2011; 49(10): 1062-1067. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2011.59
  6. Pinto D., Garnier M., Barbas J., Chang S.H., Charlifue S., Field-Fote E., Heinemann A.W. Budget impact analysis of robotic exoskeleton use for locomotor training following spinal cord injury in four SCI Model Systems. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2020; 17(1): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0639-0
  7. Jain N.B., Higgins L.D., Katz J.N., Garshick E. Association of shoulder pain with the use of mobility devices in persons with chronic spinal cord injury. PM&R. 2010; 2(10): 896-900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.05.004
  8. Saunders L.L., Krause J.S., DiPiro N.D., Kraft S., Brotherton S. Ambulation and complications related to assistive devices after spinal cord injury. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine. 2013; 36(6): 652-9. https://doi.org/10.1179/2045772312Y.0000000082
  9. Mignardot J.B., Le Goff C.G., Van Den Brand R., Capogrosso M., Fumeaux N., Vallery H., Courtine G. (2017). A multidirectional gravity-assist algorithm that enhances locomotor control in patients with stroke or spinal cord injury. Science Translational Medicine. 2017; 9(399). https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aah3621
  10. Daunoraviciene K., Adomaviciene A., Svirskis D., Griškevičius J., Juocevicius A. Necessity of early-stage verticalization in patients with brain and spinal cord injuries: preliminary study. Technology and Health Care. 2018; 26(S2): 613-623.
  11. Konovalova N.G., Filatov E.V., Lyakhovetskaya V.V., Frolenko Yu.S. Experience of using the kinesiotherapy device «Exart» in the rehabilitation of patients with spinal cord pathology at the cervical level. Russian Journal of Physiotherapy, Balneology and Rehabilitation. 2017; 16(2): 102-106. https://doi.org/10.18821/1681-3456-2017-16-2-102-106
  12. Marino R.J., Barros T., Biering-Sorensen F., Burns S.P., Donovan W.H., Graves D.E., Priebe M. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine. 2003; 26(1): S50-S56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2003.11754575
  13. Mastitsky S.E. Shitikov V.K. Statistical Analysis and Data Visualization with R. E-book. 2014. Available at: http://r-analytics.blogspot.com
  14. Petrie A., Sabin C. Medical Statistics at a Glance, 4th Edition. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. 2019: 208 p.
  15. Kozlovskaya I.B. Gravity and postural-tonic motor system. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance. 2017; 51(3): 5-21.
  16. McKay W.B., Lim H.K., Priebe M.M., Stokic D.S., Sherwood A.M. Clinical neurophysiological assessment of residual motor control in post-spinal cord injury paralysis. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2004; 18(3): 144-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888439004267674
  17. Heald E., Hart R., Kilgore K., Peckham P.H. Characterization of volitional electromyographic signals in the lower extremity after motor complete spi-nal cord injury. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2017; 31(6): 583-591. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968317704904
  18. Balbinot G., Li G., Wiest M.J., Pakosh M., Furlan J.C., Kalsi-Ryan S., Zariffa J. Properties of the surface electromyogram following traumatic spinal cord injury: a scoping review. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2021; 18(1): 105 p. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00888-2
  19. Calancie B., Molano M.R., Broton J.G. EMG for assessing the recovery of voluntary movement after acute spinal cord injury in man. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2004; 115(8): 1748-1759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2004.03.002
  20. Koval S.Ya., Khomyakova O.V., Black V.N. The use of the electromyography method in assessing the effectiveness of the choice of physical exercises in the restoration of physical activity in patients with spinal cord injury. Scientific Notes of V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Biology. Chemistry. 2011; 1(63): 60-66.
  21. Burns, A.S., Ditunno J.F. Establishing prognosis and maximizing functional outcomes after spinal cord injury: a review of current and future directions in rehabilitation management. Spine. 2001; (26): S137-S145. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200112151-00023
  22. Wutte C., Becker J., Klein B., Mach O., Panzer S., Stuby F.M., Grassner L. Early decompression (< 8 hours) improves functional bladder outcome and mobility after traumatic thoracic spinal cord injury. World Neurosurgery. 2020; (134): e847-e854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.11.015
  23. Chay W., Kirshblum S. Predicting outcomes after spinal cord injury. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America. 2020; 31(3): 331-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2020.03.003
  24. Fawcett J.W., Curt A., Steeves J.D., Coleman W.P., Tuszynski M.H., Lammertse D., Short D. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP panel: spontaneous recovery after spinal cord injury and statistical power needed for therapeutic clinical trials. Spinal Cord. 2007; 45(3): 190-205. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3102007



Creative Commons License
The content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

©

Эта статья открытого доступа по лицензии CC BY 4.0. Издательство: ФГБУ «НМИЦ РК» Минздрава России.
This is an open article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by the National Medical Research Center for Rehabilitation and Balneology.

Aссоциация НАЭСКЛ