Three-dimensional gait analysis of Lokomat automatic robot in patients with Parkinson's disease
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1006-7876.2018.07.005
- VernacularTitle:帕金森病患者全自动下肢机器人训练前后的三维步态分析
- Author:
Min XIA
1
,
2
;
Zengtu ZHAN
;
Guoen CAI
;
Qinyong YE
;
Xiaochun CHEN
Author Information
1. 350001 福州,福建医科大学附属协和医院神经内科
2. 福建中医药大学附属康复医院
- Keywords:
Parkinson disease;
Robot;
Three-dimensional gait analysis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Neurology
2018;51(7):504-509
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of gait training and assessment system of Lokomat automatic robot (Lokomat robot) in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD).Methods Based on Hoehn-Yahr scale, 30 PD patients ranging from stage 2.5 to 3 were included and randomly assigned to Lokomat robot group ( n＝15) and control group ( n＝15).Lokomat robot system was employed in the training session of the Lokomat robot group, whereas patients in the control group were trained under auditory and visual guidance.Each training session lasted for 20 minutes, and repeated three days per week.Three motor assessments were performed before and after the four weeks training , including timed up and go test (TUGT), Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Ⅲ(UPDRS-Ⅲ) and three-dimensional gait analysis. Repeated measure analysis was performed under general linear mode , using SPSS 20.0.Results Gender, age, height and age of onset were matched in the Lokomat robot and the control groups .Scores of UPDRS-Ⅲ(Lokomat robot group , 23.46 ±2.72 vs 15.87 ±2.07; control group, 23.73 ±1.98 vs 18.07 ±0.80) and results of TUGT (Lokomat robot group, (15.42 ±5.59) vs (10.06 ±4.88) min; control group, (15.75 ± 4.67) vs (12.98 ±3.24) min) showed statistically significant differences before and after the gait training (UPDRS-Ⅲ, F＝258.598, P＝0.000; TUGT, F＝64.998, P＝0.000), and between the two groups (UPDRS-Ⅲ, F＝5.492, P＝0.026; TUGT, F＝6.522, P＝0.016).The step length (Lokomat robot group, (40.00 ±7.05) vs (52.70 ±7.62) cm; control group, (39.16 ±4.52) vs (46.72 ±7.29) cm), stride length (Lokomat robot group, (76.03 ±12.50) vs (90.60 ±12.46) cm; control group, (77.25 ± 8.07 ) vs (88.21 ±8.17) cm), walking pace ( Lokomat robot group, (67.16 ±12.79) vs (83.72 ± 10.96) m/min; control group, (65.35 ±11.56) vs (77.18 ±10.60) m/min), and total supporting phase (Lokomat robot group, 62.31% ±3.32% vs 56.05% ±3.98%; control group, 62.52% ±3.73% vs 57.96%±3.51%) showed significant improvement after training ( step length, F＝90.866, P＝0.000;stride length, F＝218.152, P＝0.000; walking pace, F＝172.236, P＝0.000; total supporting phase , F＝197.945, P＝0.000).Meanwhile, these improvements were more significant in the Lokomat robot group than the control group ( step length, F＝5.853, P＝0.022; stride length, F＝4.346, P＝0.046;walking pace, F＝4.904, P＝0.035; total supporting phase, F＝4.845, P＝0.036).No significant difference in step frequency was found before and after gait training.Conclusion Both gait trainings improved walking ability in PD patients , and Lokomat robot system guided training showed more obvious improvement than the traditional training under hearing and visual cue.
