This article is part of a series on Robotic Lower Limb Exoskeletons, edited by Dr Ferris.

Research

Pilot study of Lokomat versus manual-assisted treadmill training for locomotor recovery post-stroke

Kelly P Westlake¹ and Carolynn Patten^2,3

¹  Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA

²  Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, Malcolm Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida, USA

³  Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

author email corresponding author email

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 2009, 6:18doi:10.1186/1743-0003-6-18

Published:	12 June 2009

Abstract

Background

While manually-assisted body-weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) has revealed improved locomotor function in persons with post-stroke hemiparesis, outcomes are inconsistent and it is very labor intensive. Thus an alternate treatment approach is desirable. Objectives of this pilot study were to: 1) compare the efficacy of body-weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) combined with the Lokomat robotic gait orthosis versus manually-assisted BWSTT for locomotor training post-stroke, and 2) assess effects of fast versus slow treadmill training speed.

Methods

Sixteen volunteers with chronic hemiparetic gait (0.62 ± 0.30 m/s) post-stroke were randomly allocated to Lokomat (n = 8) or manual-BWSTT (n = 8) 3×/wk for 4 weeks. Groups were also stratified by fast (mean 0.92 ± 0.15 m/s) or slow (0.58 ± 0.12 m/s) training speeds. The primary outcomes were self-selected overground walking speed and paretic step length ratio. Secondary outcomes included: fast overground walking speed, 6-minute walk test, and a battery of clinical measures.

Results

No significant differences in primary outcomes were revealed between Lokomat and manual groups as a result of training. However, within the Lokomat group, self-selected walk speed, paretic step length ratio, and four of the six secondary measures improved (p = 0.04–0.05, effect sizes = 0.19–0.60). Within the manual group, only balance scores improved (p = 0.02, effect size = 0.57). Group differences between fast and slow training groups were not revealed (p ≥ 0.28).

Conclusion

Results suggest that Lokomat training may have advantages over manual-BWSTT following a modest intervention dose in chronic hemiparetic persons and further, that our training speeds produce similar gait improvements. Suggestions for a larger randomized controlled trial with optimal study parameters are provided.