The Effects of Robot-Assisted Movement Training on Daily Life Activities and Hopelessness Levels in Neurorehabilitation Patients

Filiz Özdemir 1 * , Tuba Tulay Koca 2, Fatma oksuz 3
More Detail
1 Inonu University Faculty of Health Sciences, Malatya, Turkey
2 Ozgür Yasam Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Center, Mersin, Turkey
3 Sutcu ImamUniversity Faculty of Medicine, Kahramanmaras, Turkey
* Corresponding Author
J CLIN MED KAZ, Volume 1, Issue 51, pp. 56-60. https://doi.org/10.23950/1812-2892-JCMK-00670
OPEN ACCESS 3120 Views 2110 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the effects of robot-assisted movement training on daily life activities and hopelessness levels in neurorehabilitation patients.
Material and methods: The study is a randomized controlled trial. The study was conducted on 48 patients. Of these 48 patients, 8 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Patients who had acute internal diseases, had received botulinum toxin within 6 months before the treatment, or were unable to cooperate enough to participate in the assessments were excluded. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups: Group I consisted of 21 patients who applied gait training with a robotic device in addition to the routine neurorehabilitation programme; Group II included 19 patients in the routine neurorehabilitation programme. Hopelessness levels and daily living activities were assesed before and after treatment .Assessments were made by Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS),  and Barthel Index before and after the treatment. The IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows version 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used in the analysis of the data, and p < 0.05 was considered to be significant.
Results: There was a statistically significant difference between the pre-treatment and post-treatment hopelessness levels of the patients included in robotic rehabilitation program    (p=0.001), while no significant difference was found between the hopelessness levels of the cases included in routine neurorehabilitation program (p= 0.07). No statistical difference was found within and between the groups in terms of both pre- and post-treatment Barthel Index scores. An increase was found in the Barthel Index scores when compared with pre-treatment, although the increase was not found to be significant.
Conclusion: Robotic rehabilitation plays an active role in providing help to therapist, fulfilling motor learning principles and conducting high intensity and long-term movements. Robotic systems also have a positive effect on patients’ mood and coping strategies. According to the results of our study, robotic rehabilitation  in neurorehabilitation patients will provide additional advantages.
Keywords: hopelessness, daily life activities, robotic rehabilitation, neurorehabilitation patients

CITATION

Özdemir F, Koca TT, oksuz F. The Effects of Robot-Assisted Movement Training on Daily Life Activities and Hopelessness Levels in Neurorehabilitation Patients. Journal of Clinical Medicine of Kazakhstan. 2019;1(51):56-60. https://doi.org/10.23950/1812-2892-JCMK-00670

REFERENCES

  • Bishop DS, Pet LR. Physical medicine and rehabilitation: The American Psychiatric Press textbook of consultation-liaison psychiatry. Washington: American Psychiatric Press; 1996; 755-780.
  • Abramson I, Metalsky GL, Alloy L.B. Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review. 1989 ;96:358-372. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.2.358
  • Ercan F, Demir S. Hopelessness and quality of life levels in hemodialysis patients. GMJ. 2018; 29:169-174.
  • Suet-Ching WL. The quality of life for Hong Kong dialysis patients. J Adv Nurs. 2001; 35:218-27. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01839.x
  • Kınalı G. Differences in robotic rehabilitation according to clinic requirements. (2017). Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8238114/
  • Sheng Li. Spasticity, motor recovery, and neural plasticity after stroke. Front Neurol. 2017; 3(8):120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00120
  • Zhang X, Yue Z, Wang J. Robotics in lower-limb rehabilitation after stroke. Behav Neurol. 2017; 3731802. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3731802
  • Kayabınar E. The investigation of the effect of robotic and conventional gait training in addition to neurodevelopmental treatment on balance, mobility and health related quality of life in patients with stroke. (Basılmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, 2016.
  • Cao J, Xie SQ, Das R, Zhu GL. Control strategies for effective robot assisted gait rehabilitation: The state of art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys. 2014; 36:1555-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.08.005
  • Ozbudak SD. Robot-assisted gait training for patients with spinal cord injury. Turk J Phys Med Rehab. 2015; 61(1):37-44. https://doi.org/10.5152/tftrd.2015.59558
  • Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Med J. 1965; 14:61-5.
  • Kucukdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Tennant A, Süldür N, Sonel B, Arasil T. Adaptation of the modified Barthel Index for use in physical medicine and rehabilitation in Turkey. Scand J Rehabil Med. 2000; 32(2):87-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/003655000750045604
  • Beck AT, Wiessman A, Lester D, Trexler L. The measurement of pessimism: The hopelessness scale. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1974; 42:861-5. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037562
  • Seber G, Dilbaz N, Kaptanoglu C, Tekin D. Hopelessness Scale: Validity and reliability. Journal of Crisis. 1993; 1(3):139-142.
  • Durak A, Palabıyıkoğlu R. The validation study of the Beck’s hopelessness scale. Journal of Crisis. 1994; 2:311-69.
  • Akhan LU, Kurtuncu M, Celik S. The effect of art therapy with clay on hopelessness levels among neurology patients. Rehabilitation Nursing. 2017; 42(1):39-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/rnj.215
  • Ercan F, Demir S. Hopelessness and quality of life levels in hemodialysis patients. GMJ. 2018; 29:169-174.
  • Wallard L, Dietrich G, Kerlirzin Y, Bredin, J. Effects of robotic gait rehabilitation on biomechanical parameters in the chronic hemiplegic patients. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2015; 45:215-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucli.2015.03.002
  • Krishnan C, Kotsapouikis D, Dhaher YY, Rymer WZ. Reducing robotic guidance during robot-assisted gait training improves gait function: A case report on a stroke survivor. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2013; 94:1202-1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.11.016
  • Calabro RS, Reitano S, Leo A, De Luca R, Melegari C, Bramanti P. Can robot-assisted movement training (Lokomat) improve functional recovery and psychological well-being in chronic stroke? Functional Neurology. 2014; 29(2):139-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.11138/FNeur/2014.29.2.139
  • Banz R, Bolliger M, Colombo G, et al. Computerized visual feedback: An adjunct to robotic-assisted gait training. Phys Ther. 2008; 88:1135-1145. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20070203
  • Murcia J, Llorens P, Sánchez-Payá J, Reus S, Boix V, Merino E, Laghzaoui F, Portilla J. Functional status determined by Barthel Index predicts community acquired pneumonia mortality in general population. J Infect. 2010; 61(6):458-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2010.08.006
  • Mercier L, Audet T, Hebert R, Rochette A, Dubois MF. Impact of motor, cognitive, and perceptual disorders on ability to perform activities of daily living after stroke. Stroke. 2001; 32:2602-2608. https://doi.org/10.1161/hs1101.098154
  • Studenski S, Duncan PW, Perera S, Reker D, Lai SM, Richards, L. Daily functioning and quality of life in a randomized controlled trial of therapeutic exercise for subacute stroke survivors. Stroke. 2005; 36:1764-1770. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000174192.87887.70