Browse the corpus

Exoskeleton INTRODUCTION: The growing number of stroke survivors with residual hand disabilities requires the development of efficient recovery therapy, and robotic rehabilitation can play an important role. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to compare the relative effects of end-effector (EE) and exoskeleton (EXO) hand devices in motor recovery of patients with finger-hand motor impairment stroke. METHODS: We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through search in database on PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane library until October 2020. We included as outcomes: motricity index (MI), quick version of disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire, and Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremity (FMAUE). We performed a systematic review, a meta-analysis, and a surface under the cumulative ranking analysis (SUCRA). RESULTS: We included five RTCs and 149 subjects. MI showed a signifìcant improvement (p < .05) in robotic intervention group compared to control group (effect size, ES: 9.47; confidence interval, CI: 3.91, 15.03). QuickDASH reported a significant reduction (p < .05) in EXO group (ES: -6.71; CI: -9.17, -4.25). FMAUE showed a significant improvement (p < .05) in the EE group (ES:3; CI:1.97, 4.04). SUCRA analysis of MI demonstrated that robotic interventions are more likely to be the best option for motor recovery (97.3% of probability EXO; 48.3% EE; 4.4% control). CONCLUSION: Despite the limited number of studies included, exoskeleton robotic devices might be a better option than end-effector devices in the treatment of fingers motor impairment in stroke patients. Further studies are still needed to confirm the findings and should focus on a direct comparison of the two devices.