Stroke, IschemicNCT06715098
Comparison of Robot Assisted Gait Training and Body Weight Supported Treadmill Training Using Gait Analysis and SEMG Measurements
A study testing RoboGait, RehaWalk and Conventional in people with Stroke, Ischemic, run by Pamukkale University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
The aim of our randomized controlled clinical trial was to analyze the effects of robotic-assisted gait training and body-weight-supported treadmill training on gait analysis parameters and lower extremity agonist and antagonist muscle activities in stroke patients and to compare their effectiveness in improving… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Stroke, Ischemic
- What is being tested?
- RoboGait, RehaWalk and Conventional
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 45 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 14 Dec 2023to 28 Sep 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age 18 and above
- Chronic stage stroke (6 months - 2 years)
- First stroke
- Spasticity of Ashworth stage 2 or lower
- Ability to follow commands
- Ability to walk unsupported for more than 10 meters
- No treatment received in the last month
Who cannot join
- Severe osteoporosis
- Unstable fracture
- Excessive spasticity (Ashworth stage 3 and above)
- Cognitive impairment
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Comparison of Robot Assisted Gait Training and Body Weight Supported Treadmill Training in Chronic Stroke Patients Using Gait Analysis and SEMG Measurements
The aim of our randomized controlled clinical trial was to analyze the effects of robotic-assisted gait training and body-weight-supported treadmill training on gait analysis parameters and lower extremity agonist and antagonist muscle activities in stroke patients and to compare their effectiveness in improving locomotor function. The main questions that the researchers aimed to answer are: What are the effects of robotic-assisted gait training and body-weight-supported treadmill training on gait analysis parameters in stroke patients? What are the effects of robotic-assisted gait training and body-weight-supported treadmill training on lower extremity agonist and antagonist muscle activities in stroke patients? What is the effectiveness of robotic-assisted gait training and body-weight-supported treadmill training in improving locomotor function in stroke patients? The patients included in the study were randomly divided into three groups: The first group received robotic-assisted gait training with RoboGait, the second group received body-weight-supported gait training on a treadmill with RehaWalk, and the third group received conventional walking training.
- Conditions
- Stroke, Ischemic
- Being tested
- RoboGait, RehaWalk, Conventional
- Keywords
- Stroke, RehaWalk, RoboGait
- Medical subject headings
- Ischemic Stroke, Stroke
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
RoboGaitDevice
RoboGait: robotic-assisted gait training
RehaWalkDevice
RehaWalk: body weight-supported treadmill training
ConventionalOther
Conventional: conventional walking training
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| RoboGait group | Experimental | Robotic walking training 3 days a week, 30 minutes a day for 4 weeks Receives: Device: RoboGait |
| RehaWalk group | Experimental | Walking training on treadmill with body weight support for 30 minutes a day, 3 days a week for 4 weeks Receives: Device: RehaWalk |
| Conventional Group | Active comparator | Conventional walking training for 30 minutes a day, 3 days a week for 4 weeks Receives: Other: Conventional |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Gait analysis with 2D camera
Kinematic parameters: Hip joint flexion range of motion degree in the swing phase in the sagittal plane, knee joint maximum flexion angle degree, ankle joint dorsiflexion range of motion degree
Measured: Change from baseline kinematic parameters at the 4th week after the treatment
Surface Electromyography (sEMG)
The average EMG (AEMG) amplitude and co-contraction indices (CCI) are calculated for the affected lower extremity's knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion during the swing phase. CCI is calculated using the formula antagonistic muscle AEMG / (antagonistic muscle AEMG + agonistic muscle AEMG)
Measured: Change from baseline surface electromyography (sEMG) at the 4th week after the treatment
Pressure and Walking Analysis
The researchers examined the effects such as walking line length, single support line, forward and backward rollers and lateral symmetry indexes in the pressure analyses. In the gait analysis, walking speed, cadence, step length, step width, foot rotation angle, step duration, double support duration, stance phase, swing phase, single support phase, pre-swing phase, mid-swing phase, terminal swing phase, stance duration, swing duration, double phase, double step length and temporal symmetry index were evaluated. The temporal symmetry index was calculated using the following formula: Swing duration of the affected side of the patient / Swing duration of the unaffected side of the patient
Measured: Change from baseline pressure and walking analysis at the 4th week after the treatment
Secondary outcomes (3)
The Functional Ambulation Scale (FAS)
The Functional Ambulation Scale (FAS) is a scale used to assess the level of ambulation in patients. It is divided into six categories graded from 0 to 5: FAS 0: no ambulation, FAS 1-2: unable to walk without assistance, FAS 3-5: able to walk 6 meters independently.
Measured: Change from baseline FAS at the 4th week after the treatment
For lower extremity, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-LE)
For lower extremity, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-LE) was used in our study, consisting of a total of 17 items with a maximum score of 34 points. The scale assesses reflexes, synergy-dependent or synergy-independent voluntary movements, coordination, and speed. Each item is scored between 0 and 2 points, with a higher score indicating better outcomes.
Measured: Change from baseline FMA-LE at the 4th week after the treatment
The 6-minute walk test (6MWT)
In the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), researchers asked participants to walk down a 30-meter hospital hallway at their own pace for 6 minutes, following standard instructions to cover as much distance as possible. The distance walked was recorded in meters.
Measured: Change from baseline 6MWT at the 4th week after the treatment
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 Dec 2024
- Study start14 Dec 2023
- Primary completion31 Aug 2024
- Study completion28 Sep 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (29)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Stroke, IschemicStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Pamukkale UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 45 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Pamukkale University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Füsun Ardıç, Pamukkale University
- Investigators
- Füsun Ardıç, Professor, Study director, Pamukkale University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06715098
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PamukkaleU.ftr-FArdıç-001
- Status last verified
- Nov 2024
- First submitted
- 12 Jul 2024
- Last updated
- 4 Dec 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Kuriakose D, Xiao Z. Pathophysiology and Treatment of Stroke: Present Status and Future Perspectives. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Oct 15;21(20):7609. doi: 10.3390/ijms21207609.
PubMed 33076218GBD 2016 Stroke Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019 May;18(5):439-458. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30034-1. Epub 2019 Mar 11.
PubMed 30871944Stroke, Cerebrovascular accident, WHO. Accessed: 08.10.2023 https://www.emro.who.int/health-topics/stroke-cerebrovascular-accident/index.html
Furie K. Epidemiology and Primary Prevention of Stroke. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2020 Apr;26(2):260-267. doi: 10.1212/CON.0000000000000831.
PubMed 32224751Buntin MB, Colla CH, Deb P, Sood N, Escarce JJ. Medicare spending and outcomes after postacute care for stroke and hip fracture. Med Care. 2010 Sep;48(9):776-84. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e359df.
PubMed 20706167Selves C, Stoquart G, Lejeune T. Gait rehabilitation after stroke: review of the evidence of predictors, clinical outcomes and timing for interventions. Acta Neurol Belg. 2020 Aug;120(4):783-790. doi: 10.1007/s13760-020-01320-7. Epub 2020 Mar 12.
PubMed 32166723Druzbicki M, Przysada G, Guzik A, Brzozowska-Magon A, Kolodziej K, Wolan-Nieroda A, Majewska J, Kwolek A. The Efficacy of Gait Training Using a Body Weight Support Treadmill and Visual Biofeedback in Patients with Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Biomed Res Int. 2018 Apr 5;2018:3812602. doi: 10.1155/2018/3812602. eCollection 2018.
PubMed 29850509Malik AN, Tariq H, Afridi A, Rathore FA. Technological advancements in stroke rehabilitation. J Pak Med Assoc. 2022 Aug;72(8):1672-1674. doi: 10.47391/JPMA.22-90.
PubMed 36280946Norouzi-Gheidari N, Archambault PS, Fung J. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on stroke rehabilitation in upper limbs: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(4):479-96. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2010.10.0210.
PubMed 22773253Schwartz I, Meiner Z. Robotic-assisted gait training in neurological patients: who may benefit? Ann Biomed Eng. 2015 May;43(5):1260-9. doi: 10.1007/s10439-015-1283-x. Epub 2015 Feb 28.
PubMed 25724733Yoo HJ, Bae CR, Jeong H, Ko MH, Kang YK, Pyun SB. Clinical efficacy of overground powered exoskeleton for gait training in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized controlled pilot trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Jan 27;102(4):e32761. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032761.
PubMed 36705351Özbudak Demir S. Robot-Assisted Gait Training for Patients with Spinal Cord Injury. Turk J Phys Med Rehab 2015;61 (Supp. 1):S37-S44.
Visintin M, Barbeau H, Korner-Bitensky N, Mayo NE. A new approach to retrain gait in stroke patients through body weight support and treadmill stimulation. Stroke. 1998 Jun;29(6):1122-8. doi: 10.1161/01.str.29.6.1122.
PubMed 9626282Zhang H, Li X, Gong Y, Wu J, Chen J, Chen W, Pei Z, Zhang W, Dai L, Shu X, Shen C. Three-Dimensional Gait Analysis and sEMG Measures for Robotic-Assisted Gait Training in Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Biomed Res Int. 2023 Apr 11;2023:7563802. doi: 10.1155/2023/7563802. eCollection 2023.
PubMed 37082189Lura DJ, Venglar MC, van Duijn AJ, Csavina KR. Body weight supported treadmill vs. overground gait training for acute stroke gait rehabilitation. Int J Rehabil Res. 2019 Sep;42(3):270-274. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000357.
PubMed 31094879
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Dec 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Robot Assisted Gait Training and Body Weight Supported Treadmill Training in Chronic Stroke Patients Using Gait Analysis and SEMG Measurements
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06715098
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PamukkaleU.ftr-FArdıç-001
- Conditions
- Stroke, Ischemic
- Keywords
- Stroke, RehaWalk, RoboGait
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 45 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Pamukkale UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 14 Dec 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Aug 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 28 Sep 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 4 Dec 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of our randomized controlled clinical trial was to analyze the effects of robotic-assisted gait training and body-weight-supported treadmill training on gait analysis parameters and lower extremity agonist and antagonist muscle activities in stroke patients and to compare their effectiveness in improving locomotor function. The main questions that the researchers aimed to answer are: What are the effects of robotic-assisted gait training and body-weight-supported treadmill training on gait analysis parameters in stroke patients? What are the effects of robotic-assisted gait training and body-weight-supported treadmill training on lower extremity agonist and antagonist muscle activities in stroke patients? What is the effectiveness of robotic-assisted gait training and body-weight-supported treadmill training in improving locomotor function in stroke patients? The patients included in the study were randomly divided into three groups: The first group received robotic-assisted gait training with RoboGait, the second group received body-weight-supported gait training on a treadmill with RehaWalk, and the third group received conventional walking training.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| RoboGait group | Experimental | Device: RoboGaitRobotic walking training 3 days a week, 30 minutes a day for 4 weeks |
| RehaWalk group | Experimental | Device: RehaWalkWalking training on treadmill with body weight support for 30 minutes a day, 3 days a week for 4 weeks |
| Conventional Group | Active comparator | Other: ConventionalConventional walking training for 30 minutes a day, 3 days a week for 4 weeks |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Age 18 and above
- Chronic stage stroke (6 months - 2 years)
- First stroke
- Spasticity of Ashworth stage 2 or lower
- Ability to follow commands
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Severe osteoporosis
- Unstable fracture
- Excessive spasticity (Ashworth stage 3 and above)
- Cognitive impairment
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| RoboGaitRoboGait: robotic-assisted gait training | Device | RoboGait group |
| RehaWalkRehaWalk: body weight-supported treadmill training | Device | RehaWalk group |
| ConventionalConventional: conventional walking training | Other | Conventional Group |
Primary outcome
Gait analysis with 2D camera
Time frame: Change from baseline kinematic parameters at the 4th week after the treatment
Kinematic parameters: Hip joint flexion range of motion degree in the swing phase in the sagittal plane, knee joint maximum flexion angle degree, ankle joint dorsiflexion range of motion degree
Surface Electromyography (sEMG)
Time frame: Change from baseline surface electromyography (sEMG) at the 4th week after the treatment
The average EMG (AEMG) amplitude and co-contraction indices (CCI) are calculated for the affected lower extremity's knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion during the swing phase. CCI is calculated using the formula antagonistic muscle AEMG / (antagonistic muscle AEMG + agonistic muscle AEMG)
Pressure and Walking Analysis
Time frame: Change from baseline pressure and walking analysis at the 4th week after the treatment
The researchers examined the effects such as walking line length, single support line, forward and backward rollers and lateral symmetry indexes in the pressure analyses. In the gait analysis, walking speed, cadence, step length, step width, foot rotation angle, step duration, double support duration, stance phase, swing phase, single support phase, pre-swing phase, mid-swing phase, terminal swing phase, stance duration, swing duration, double phase, double step length and temporal symmetry index were evaluated. The temporal symmetry index was calculated using the following formula: Swing duration of the affected side of the patient / Swing duration of the unaffected side of the patient
3 secondary outcomes
The Functional Ambulation Scale (FAS)
Time frame: Change from baseline FAS at the 4th week after the treatment
For lower extremity, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-LE)
Time frame: Change from baseline FMA-LE at the 4th week after the treatment
The 6-minute walk test (6MWT)
Time frame: Change from baseline 6MWT at the 4th week after the treatment
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Dec 2024.
- Background: PubMed 33076218Kuriakose D, Xiao Z. Pathophysiology and Treatment of Stroke: Present Status and Future Perspectives. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Oct 15;21(20):7609. doi: 10.3390/ijms21207609.
- Background: PubMed 30871944GBD 2016 Stroke Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019 May;18(5):439-458. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30034-1. Epub 2019 Mar 11.
- BackgroundStroke, Cerebrovascular accident, WHO. Accessed: 08.10.2023 https://www.emro.who.int/health-topics/stroke-cerebrovascular-accident/index.html
- Background: PubMed 32224751Furie K. Epidemiology and Primary Prevention of Stroke. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2020 Apr;26(2):260-267. doi: 10.1212/CON.0000000000000831.
- Background: PubMed 20706167Buntin MB, Colla CH, Deb P, Sood N, Escarce JJ. Medicare spending and outcomes after postacute care for stroke and hip fracture. Med Care. 2010 Sep;48(9):776-84. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e359df.
- Background: PubMed 32166723Selves C, Stoquart G, Lejeune T. Gait rehabilitation after stroke: review of the evidence of predictors, clinical outcomes and timing for interventions. Acta Neurol Belg. 2020 Aug;120(4):783-790. doi: 10.1007/s13760-020-01320-7. Epub 2020 Mar 12.
- Background: PubMed 29850509Druzbicki M, Przysada G, Guzik A, Brzozowska-Magon A, Kolodziej K, Wolan-Nieroda A, Majewska J, Kwolek A. The Efficacy of Gait Training Using a Body Weight Support Treadmill and Visual Biofeedback in Patients with Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Biomed Res Int. 2018 Apr 5;2018:3812602. doi: 10.1155/2018/3812602. eCollection 2018.
- Background: PubMed 36280946Malik AN, Tariq H, Afridi A, Rathore FA. Technological advancements in stroke rehabilitation. J Pak Med Assoc. 2022 Aug;72(8):1672-1674. doi: 10.47391/JPMA.22-90.
- Background: PubMed 22773253Norouzi-Gheidari N, Archambault PS, Fung J. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on stroke rehabilitation in upper limbs: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(4):479-96. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2010.10.0210.
- Background: PubMed 25724733Schwartz I, Meiner Z. Robotic-assisted gait training in neurological patients: who may benefit? Ann Biomed Eng. 2015 May;43(5):1260-9. doi: 10.1007/s10439-015-1283-x. Epub 2015 Feb 28.
- Background: PubMed 36705351Yoo HJ, Bae CR, Jeong H, Ko MH, Kang YK, Pyun SB. Clinical efficacy of overground powered exoskeleton for gait training in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized controlled pilot trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Jan 27;102(4):e32761. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032761.
- BackgroundÖzbudak Demir S. Robot-Assisted Gait Training for Patients with Spinal Cord Injury. Turk J Phys Med Rehab 2015;61 (Supp. 1):S37-S44.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Stroke, Ischemic
Not yet recruiting
Temporal Interference Stimulation for Upper-Limb Motor Recovery in Early Subacute Stroke
Acute Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
ELATE Study: Evaluating Large-vessel Acute Thrombectomy in Extended Time Window
Acute Ichemic Stroke
Not yet recruiting
Selective Intra-Arterial Hypothermia After Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion
Acute Ischemic Stroke, Basilar Artery Occlusion
Active, not recruiting
Improving Visual Field Deficits With Noninvasive Brain Stimulation
Visual Field Defect, Peripheral, Stroke
Recruiting
Biomarkers of Paired VNS
Stroke, Ischemic
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Füsun Ardıç, Professor study director
Pamukkale University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing RoboGait, RehaWalk and Conventional in people with Stroke, Ischemic, run by Pamukkale University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 7 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Dec 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Gait analysis with 2D camera (time frame: Change from baseline kinematic parameters at the 4th week after the treatment). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06715098, which also lists 29 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Dec 2024.