Acosta AE, Hernández AH, Devesa GI

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 17-23
PDF size: 179.10 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Stroke is considered a public health issue worldwide, representing the third cause of death and the first cause of discapacity in adults. Research suggests that through neuroplasticity, neural connections can be established by realizing high-intensity, repetitive movements, aimed at a specific task, which can be achieved with robotic therapy. Objective: Identify the efficacy of robotic therapy for upper limb rehabilitation in patients with stroke. Methods: Systematic review, realized from September to December of 2013. An electronic search of the literature was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, PEDro, IMSS electronic publications and manual search; the articles that met the inclusion criteria were selected. Each article was evaluated independently by two revisers for the determination of the methodologic quality. Results: Of the 71 articles, 5 met the inclusion criteria. The interobserver concordance for the methodologic quality for the articles selected was good (0.9, kappa index). The total of studied patients was 203. Conclusions: It was identified that the robotic therapy for upper limb rehabilitation in patients with stroke has a level of evidence of 2 and a recommendation grade C.

REFERENCES

1. Warlow C, Sudlow C. Stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2003; 362: 1211-1223.

2. Alcalá-Ramírez J, González-Guzmán R. Enfermedad cerebrovascular, epidemiología y prevención. Rev Fac Med UNAM. 2007; 50 (1): 36-39.

3. Guizar B, Nieto PR. Epidemiologia de la enfermedad vascular cerebral en el Hospital General de México. Rev Med Hosp Mex. 2003; 66 (1): 7-12.

4. Daviet JC. Rehabilitación en caso de accidente vascular cerebral. Estudio general y tratamiento. Enciclopedia Médico Quirúrgica. 2003; 26: 455-510.

5. Prevención secundaria, diagnóstico, tratamiento y vigilancia de la enfermedad cerebral vascular isquémica en México. Guía de Práctica Clínica: Secretaría de Salud; 2008.

6. Townsend N et al. Coronary heart disease statistics: 2012 edition. University of Oxford: British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group Department of Public Health; 2012: 21-57.

7. Adamson J et al. Stroke and disability. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004; 13 (4): 171-177.

8. Stroke statistics: 2013. Stroke Association (UK). January, 2013.

9. Solís D et al. Influencia de los factores pronósticos en la recuperación del paciente con enfermedad cerebrovascular. Rev Hab Cien Med. 2009; 8 (1): 118-124.

10. Post-stroke rehabilitation. Post-stroke rehabilitation: assessment, referral, and patient management. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Clin Pract Guidel Quick Ref Guide Clin. 1995; (6): 1-32.

11. Warlow CP et al. A practical approach to the management of stroke patients: Oxford practical guide to management. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science: 2001; pp. 414-441.

12. Rothwell PM. The high cost of not funding stroke research: a comparison with heart disease and cancer. Lancet. 2011; 357: 1612-1616.

13. Teasell RW et al. An evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2003; 10 (1): 29-58.

14. Angels-Font M et al. Angionesis, neurogenesis and neuroplasticity in isquemic stroke. Current Cardiology Reviews. 2010; 6: 238-244.

15. Slevin M et al. Can angiogenesis be exploited to improve stroke outcome? Mechanisms and therapeutic potential. Clin Sci (Lond). 2006; 111 (3): 171-183.

16. Lizasoain I et al. Plasticidad, neurogénesis y angiogénesis. Medica Books; 2007.

17. Counsell C et al. Predicting outcome after acute and subacute stroke: development and validation of new prognostic models. Stroke. 2002; 33: 1041-1047.

18. Zhang ZG et al. Neurorestorative therapies for stroke: underlying mechanisms and translation to the clinic. Lancet Neurol. 2009; 8 (5): 491-500.

19. Bates B et al. Veterans affairs/department of defense clinical practice guideline for the management of adult stroke rehabilitation care: executive summary. Stroke. 2005; 36: 2049-2056.

20. Duncan PW et al. Development of a comprehensive assessment toolbox for stroke. Clin Geriatr Med. 1999; 15: 885-915.

21. Ipswich MA. Long-term management of stroke. Dynamed review: EBSCO Information Services. Last update: December 2013.

22. Gladstone DJ et al. The fugl-meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002; 16 (3): 232-240.

23. Bayón C. Plasticidad cerebral inducida por algunas terapias aplicadas en el paciente con ictus. Revisión de la Sociedad Española de Rehabilitación y Medicina Física. 2008; 42: 86-81.

24. Pappas E et al. Overground physical therapy for gait training or chronic stroke patients with mobility deficits (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; (3): CD006075.

25. Giggins OM et al. Biofeedback in rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013; 10: 60.

26. Langhorne P et al. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009; 8 (8): 741-754.

27. Prange GB et al. Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006; 46 (2): 171-184.

28. Kwakkel G et al. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008; 22 (2): 111-121.

29. Prange GB et al. Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006; 43 (2): 171-184.

30. Armeo Therapy Concept. Flyer/Manual. Hocoma.