Abstract
Objective. The objective of the study is to assess the effect of upper limb therapy with the use of the Fourier M2 smart robot in post-stroke patients with right and left hemiplegia. Material and methods. The study included 13 post-stroke patients with hemiplegia. The study group consisted of 11 men and 2 women. Eight patients experienced a left-sided stroke and five patients experienced a right-sided stroke. The patients were assessed using the Fourier M2 robot. Inclusion criteria for the study were the occurrence of a stroke, hemiplegia, dysfunction of the upper limb, and restricted mobility. The patients underwent a 10-day therapy with the use of the Fourier M2 smart robot, which is used for diagnostics, planning and conducting therapy. Statistical calculations were performed using the Statscloud application. Results: On the first day, the caloric values were lower (Mdn = 1.60) than on the last day (Mdn = 3.60), which proves the effects of using a smart robot in the neurorehabilitation of post-stroke patients. The Wilcoxon test shows a statistically significant difference: z = −3.18; p = 0.003, r = −0.62. On the first day, the result was lower (Mdn = 1,231.00) compared to the last day (Mdn = 1,591.00), which proves the effects of using a smart robot in the neurorehabilitation of post-stroke patients. The Wilcoxon test shows a statistically significant difference: z = −2.48; p = 0.018, r = −0.49. On the last day, the score values are higher (M = 196.85, SD = 93.14) than on the first day (M = 137.46, SD = 99.96), which proves the effects of using a smart robot in the neurorehabilitation of post-stroke patients. The T-test shows that the difference was statistically significant: t(12) = −3.22; p = 0.007, Cohen dav = 0.62, observed force = 0.32. With a random pair of values, there is a 73.08% chance that the last day’s value would be higher than the first day’s value. On the first day, the distance values were lower (Mdn = 23.00) than on the last day (Mdn = 52.80), which proves the effects of using a smart robot in the neurorehabilitation of post-stroke patients. The Wilcoxon test shows that the difference was statistically significant: z = −3.11; p = 0.003, r = −0.61. On the first day, the average speed values were lower (Mdn = 4.50) than on the last day (Mdn = 4.60), which proves the effects of using a smart robot in the neurorehabilitation of post-stroke patients. The Wilcoxon test shows that the difference is statistically significant: z = −2.76; p = 0.009, r = −0.54. On the first day, the proportion of active movement was higher (M = 27.25, SD = 21.72) than on the last day (M = 25.54, SD = 24.73), which does not prove the effects of using a smart robot in neurorehabilitation stroke patients. The T-test shows that the difference was not statistically significant: t(12) = 0.31, p = 0.758, Cohen dav = 0.07, observed force = 0.04. In the case of a pair of randomly selected values, there is a 52.93% chance that the values on the first day would be higher than on the last day.
Conclusions. 1. The use of the Fourier M2 smart robot does not have a positive effect on increasing the proportion of active movement in post-stroke patients with hemiplegia. 2. The use of the Fourier M2 smart robot has a positive effect on the improvement of the average speed of movement in post-patients with hemiplegia.
3. The use of the Fourier M2 smart robot has a positive effect on increasing the functionality of the upper limb in post-stroke patients with hemiplegia.
Key words:
stroke, neurology, robot, upper limb, hemiplegia