Does Isolated Robotic-Assisted Gait Training Improve Functional Status, Daily Living And Quality Of Life In Stroke?


Istanbul University




Cerebrovascular Accident
Cerebrovascular Stroke
Cerebral Stroke


Other: Robotic-Assisted Gait Training

Study type


Funder types




Details and patient eligibility


Stroke is one of the major cause of morbidity and mortality and the leading cause of disability in adults all around the world. Stroke survivors can suffer several neurological impairments and deficits which have an important impact on patient's quality of life and which increase the costs for health and social services. After stroke, impairments in ADLs and functional status, deterioration in health related quality of life can be seen. Although most of the stroke survivors experience some level of neurological recovery, nearly 50%-60% of stroke patients still experience some degree of motor impairment, and approximately 50% are at least partly dependent in activities-of-daily-living (ADL). Gait recovery, performing activities of daily living and regaining independence in ADLs are the main focus of stroke rehabilitation programs. Robotic technologies are becoming more promising techniques for the locomotor training in stroke patients. Achieving a functional walking level is one of the target of robotic gait training and it has been shown that Robotic-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) improves walking function in stroke patients. Having a functional gait level may help the stroke patients to regain independence in ADLs and improve quality of life. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of RAGT on functional status, ADLs and health related quality of life.

Full description

Design: Our study design was a randomized single-blind controlled study of 6 weeks including inpatient ambulatory subacute and chronic stroke patients. Sample size was calculated by Raosoft, Inc. Clinically meaningful difference was considered 20% for all outcome measures. The original sample size was estimated 45 patients to detect a statistically significant difference between groups. Considering the drop-out, fifty-one patient were included. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three training group by a researcher (ARO) using the function of Microsoft Office Excel software. In this randomized-controlled study, eighty patients were assessed in terms of eligibility criteria, and 51 patients were included in the study. The patients were evaluated by two physiatrists in Istanbul Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Education and Research Hospital and referred to the Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Unit of the same hospital. Enrollment period was between November 2014 and December 2015. Blinding: During the consent process, participants were advised that they would be randomized to one of three intervention groups. To minimize exposure between groups, the Robot-Assisted Gait Training and Conventional Training programs were administered in different sections of the rehabilitation center. The 2 trial physiotherapists could blinded to intervention group. All treatment schedules were planned by another researcher. All outcome assessments were conducted by a blinded assessor located offsite. Trial staff instructed participants to avoid mentioning anything about their intervention to the assessor. Patients were asked not to shear any information about treatment between each other.


51 patients




18 to 75 years old


Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

  • diagnosis of a stroke (at least 3 months),
  • ambulatory with or without the use of an assistive device or ankle-foot orthosis,
  • 3 or higher grades in Functional Ambulation Category,
  • able to walk 10 meters with or without supervision,
  • able to follow verbal instructions,
  • physician approval to enter an exercise program.

Exclusion criteria

  • previous stroke history,
  • any other neurologic disorders, complications from other health conditions (cardiovascular or musculoskeletal conditions),
  • contracture or muscle tonus ≥ 3 according to Modified Ashworth Scale, preventing range of motion in lower extremity,
  • severe osteoporosis,
  • cognitive deficit preventing them from following instructions.

Trial design

Primary purpose




Interventional model

Parallel Assignment


Single Blind

51 participants in 3 patient groups

Conventional Training
No Intervention group
Conventional physical therapy consisted of neurophysiological concepts such as Bobath and Brunnstrom.Training sessions focused on static and dynamic postural tasks, improving lower and upper extremity range of motion, strengthening and overground walking. During walking training, emphasis was on distance walked than on gait quality. Symmetrical weight distribution was encouraged through verbal and tactile cues and was made more difficult by the addition of arm activities or actions requiring trunk rotation. In an effort to improve rhythmic weight-shifting ability, subjects practiced shifting their weight in forward and backward directions and side to side while performing reaching tasks. A session lasted 45 minutes, for 5 days per week for 6 weeks.
Robotic-Assisted Gait Training
Experimental group
Lokomat (Hocoma) was used in Robotic-Assisted Gait Training group with 20 % body weight reduced. The participants walked on device at 1.8 km/h (0.5 m/sec) velocity. For each participant body weight portion was ensured by a security belt while walking. Each session took 45 minutes including setup, commands and rest time. Verbal instructions were used for encouragement but no manual assistance was given to improve gait. Robotic-Assisted Gait Training sessions lasted 45-minute sessions, 2 days a week during 6 weeks.
Other: Robotic-Assisted Gait Training
Combined Training
No Intervention group
Combined Training consisted of inpatient participants who were treated with 45 minute-conventional training, 5 days a week during 6 weeks. Additionally this group had 45 minute-Robotic-Assisted Gait Training, 2 days a week during 6 weeks.

Trial contacts and locations



Data sourced from

Clinical trials

Find clinical trialsTrials by location
© Copyright 2024 Veeva Systems