RESUMO
The lower limb rehabilitation training robots were divided into standing robots and sitting robots. Standing lower limb reha-bilitation robots included three kinds of typical structures, which mainly support body weight by suspension, and partially by air bags. Sit-ting lower limb rehabilitation robots were divided into chair and bed types, they support body weight by chairs and beds. This article re-viewed the development of products in the structures of the configuration, combined with some of the existing product and research, as well as the clinical application, .
RESUMO
Objective To investigate the effect of lower limb rehabilitation training robot combined with task-oriented training on walking ability after stroke. Methods From February 2014 to August 2015,74 consecutive patients with post-stroke who received rehabilitation therapy and met the inclusion criteria admitted to the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine,Xuanwu Hospital,Capital Medical University were collected prospectively. They were all the patients with the first-ever stroke for 1 to 12 months. They were divided into either an observation group (n = 39)or a control group (n = 35)according to whether they were treated with the lower-limb rehabilitation robot. The patients of both groups received task-oriented training,2 times a day,once for 20 min,5 days a week for 12 weeks. The observation group was also treated with the lower-limb rehabilitation training robot,1 time a day,once for 30 min,5 days a week. Berg balance scale,Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA),timed up-and-go test (TUG)and knee flexion active range of motion (KFAROM)were used to assess the efficacy. Results (1)After treatment,the Berg scale and FMA scale scores were increased in the observation group and the control group compared with before treatment. There was significant difference (Berg scale:28 ±9 vs. 22 ±9,29 ±9 vs. 24 ±9;FMA scores:47 ± 8 vs. 36 ± 8,40 ± 6 vs. 36 ± 7;all P < 0. 01),however,there was no significant difference between the two groups (P <0. 05),and there was significant difference in FMA scores between the 2 groups (P < 0. 01 ). The differences of Berg scale scores in the observation group and the control group were 10. 75 + 0. 30 and 4. 71 + 0. 14 respectively before and after treatment. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (t = 0. 95,P = 0. 345). The differences of FMA scores in the observation group and the control group were 5. 8 ±0. 6 and 4. 9 ±0. 8 before and after treatment (t =5. 16,P <0. 01). (2)After treatment,the tug test and KFAROM of the observation group and the control group were better than those before treatment. There were significant differences (TUG test:35 ± 13 s vs. 56 ± 18 s,53 ± 17 s vs. 58 ± 18 s;KFAROM:82 ± 24° vs. 60 ± 23°,63 ± 23° vs. 57 ± 26°;all P < 0. 01),and there were significant differences between the 2 groups (all P < 0. 01). The differences of the TUG test in the observation group and the control group before and after treatment were 21. 5 ± 5. 0 and 4. 6 ± 0. 6 s respectively. There was significant difference between the 2 groups (t = 9. 55,P < 0. 01);the differences of KFAROM in the observation group and control group before and after treatment were 5.8 ±0.6° vs. 4.9 ±0.8° respectively. There was significant differences between the 2groups (t =4.17,P <0. .01). Conclusion Lower limb rehabilitation training robot combined with task-oriented training may improve the lower extremity motor function,walking ability,knee flexion joint activity of the patients after stroke,but the improvement effect of the lower limb balance is not obvious.