吴瑞宁,周明,高岩,等.两种外骨骼机器人训练亚急性期脑卒中患者平衡功能的临床疗效比较[J].中华物理医学与康复杂志,2025,47(2):103-107
扫码阅读全文
|
| 两种外骨骼机器人训练亚急性期脑卒中患者平衡功能的临床疗效比较 |
|
| |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.cn421666-20221101-01177 |
| 中文关键词: 脑卒中 亚急性期 下肢外骨骼机器人 动态平衡能力 |
| 英文关键词: Stroke Exoskeleton robots Balance |
| 基金项目:国家科技攻关计划课题（2019YFB1311400） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 653 |
| 全文下载次数: 874 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 观察固定外骨骼机器人训练和外骨骼助行机器人训练对亚急性期脑卒中患者平衡功能的临床疗效，并进行比较。 方法 纳入符合入选和排除标准的亚急性期脑卒中患者30例，按随机数字表法将其分为固定机器人组15例和助行机器人组15例。2组患者均给予常规康复治疗，在此基础上固定机器人组增加基于跑台的固定外骨骼机器人训练，助行机器人组则增加外骨骼助行机器人训练。2组患者的机器人训练时间均为每日1次，每次20 min，每周训练5 d，连续训练2周。于治疗前和治疗2周后采用Berg平衡量表、坐位改良功能性伸展测试（SMFRT）、等速肌力训练测试系统和改良的Barthel指数分别评估2组患者的整体平衡能力、自动态平衡能力、膝关节本体感觉和日常生活活动能力。 结果 治疗后，2组患者的Berg评分、SMFRT前伸差值、患侧膝关节本体感觉绝对误差角度和改良Barthel指数评分较组内治疗前均显著改善，且助行机器人组治疗后的SMFRT前伸差值为（51.67±4.69）cm，显著优于固定机器人组治疗后的（46.13±6.28）cm，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05），而固定机器人组治疗后的患侧膝关节本体感觉绝对误差角度为（2.71±1.63）°，显著优于助行机器人组治疗后的（4.13±1.97）°，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。 结论 基于跑台的固定外骨骼机器人训练和外骨骼助行机器人训练均可改善亚急性期脑卒中患者的平衡能力、患侧膝关节本体感觉和日常生活能力，且外骨骼助行机器人在改善亚急性期脑卒中患者的动态平衡能力方面优于基于跑台的固定外骨骼机器人，而基于跑台的固定外骨骼机器人在改善其患侧膝关节本体感觉方面则优于外骨骼助行机器人。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of a fixed exoskeleton robot with that of an exoskeleton walker in training the balance of stroke survivors in the subacute stage. Methods Thirty persons with subacute stroke were divided at random into a fixed robot group (15 cases) and a walking robot group (15 cases). In addition to conventional rehabilitation treatment, the fixed robot group underwent daily 20-minute treadmill-based fixed exoskeleton robot training, 5 days a week for 2 weeks. The walking group was trained with an exoskeleton walking robot on the same schedule. Before and after the treatment, the Berg balance scale, the sitting modified functional stretch test (SMFRT), an isokinetic muscle strength test and the modified Barthel index (MBI) were used to evaluate the subjects′ global balance, self-dynamic balance, knee proprioception and ability in the activities of daily living (ADL). Results After the treatment, both groups′ average Berg score, SMFRT extension difference, proprioceptive absolute error angle in the affected knee and MBI had improved significantly. The average SMFRT extension difference after treatment in the walker group was then significantly better than the fixed robot group′s average. However, the fixed robot group′s proprioception in the affected knee joint was then significantly better, on average, than among the walking robot group. Conclusions Both fixed exoskeleton robot training and exoskeleton walker training can improve the balance, proprioception and ADL ability after a stroke. The former better improves dynamic balance; the latter better improves proprioception in the affected knee joint. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
