Exoskeleton versus end-effector robot-assisted therapy for finger-hand motor recovery in stroke survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION\nThe growing number of stroke survivors with residual hand disabilities requires the development of efficient recovery therapy, and robotic rehabilitation can play an important role.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nThe study aims to compare the relative effects of end-effector (EE) and exoskeleton (EXO) hand devices in motor recovery of patients with finger-hand motor impairment stroke.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through search in database on PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane library until October 2020. We included as outcomes: motricity index (MI), quick version of disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire, and Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremity (FMAUE). We performed a systematic review, a meta-analysis, and a surface under the cumulative ranking analysis (SUCRA).\n\n\nRESULTS\nWe included five RTCs and 149 subjects. MI showed a signifìcant improvement (p <\xa0.05) in robotic intervention group compared to control group (effect size, ES: 9.47; confidence interval, CI: 3.91, 15.03). QuickDASH reported a significant reduction (p <\xa0.05) in EXO group (ES: -6.71; CI: -9.17, -4.25). FMAUE showed a significant improvement (p <\xa0.05) in the EE group (ES:3; CI:1.97, 4.04). SUCRA analysis of MI demonstrated that robotic interventions are more likely to be the best option for motor recovery (97.3% of probability EXO; 48.3% EE; 4.4% control).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nDespite the limited number of studies included, exoskeleton robotic devices might be a better option than end-effector devices in the treatment of fingers motor impairment in stroke patients. Further studies are still needed to confirm the findings and should focus on a direct comparison of the two devices.