Deans' stroke musings: Conflicting results of robot-assisted versus usual gait training during postacute rehabilitation of stroke patients: a randomized clinical trial

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Sunday, March 15, 2020

Conflicting results of robot-assisted versus usual gait training during postacute rehabilitation of stroke patients: a randomized clinical trial

Bad research since your mentors and senior researchers didn't inform you that Bobath doesn't work. So 17 years of incompetency.

Physiotherapy Based on the Bobath Concept for Adults with Post-Stroke Hemiplegia: A Review of Effectiveness Studies 2003

The latest here:

Conflicting results of robot-assisted versus usual gait training during postacute rehabilitation of stroke patients: a randomized clinical trial

Giovanni Taveggia
a,b
, Alberto Borboni
c
, Chiara Mulé
a,b
, Jorge H. Villafañe
d
andStefano Negrini
d,e
Robot gait training has the potential to increase the effectiveness of walking therapy. Clinical outcomes after robotic training are often not superior to conventional therapy. We evaluated the effectiveness of a robot training compared with a usual gait training physiotherapy during a standardized rehabilitation protocol in inpatient participants with post stroke hemiparesis. This was a randomized double-blind clinical trial in a postacute physical and rehabilitation medicine hospital. Twenty-eight patients,39.3% women (72±6 years), with hemiparesis (<6 months after stroke) receiving a conventional treatment according to the Bobath approach were assigned randomly to an experimental or a control intervention of robot gait training to improve walking (five sessions a week for 5 weeks). Outcome measures included the 6-min walk test, the 10mwalk test, Functional Independence Measure, SF-36physical functioning and the Tinetti scale. Outcomes were collected at baseline, immediately following the intervention period and 3 months following the end of the intervention.The experimental group showed a significant increase in functional independence and gait speed (10m walk test) at the end of the treatment and follow-up, higher than the minimal detectable change. The control group showed a significant increase in the gait endurance (6-min walk test)at the follow-up, higher than the minimal detectable change. Both treatments were effective in the improvement of gait performances, although the statistical analysis of functional independence showed a significant improvement in the experimental group, indicating possible advantages during generic activities of daily living compared with overground treatment.
International Journal of Rehabilitation Research
39:29
–
35 Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Allrights reserved.