臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

研究背景和目的：中風在台灣仍是主要健康照護負擔之一。當代的復健療法包含鏡像療法、雙肢練習，和機器輔助療法。雙側上肢練習及鏡像治療，皆基於雙側練習引發雙腦耦合的密集練習概念，唯鏡像治療較雙側上肢練習增加了由鏡像產生的視覺回饋。本研究的目的為探討雙側機器誘導雙側上肢練習與雙側機器誘導鏡像治療對慢性中風患者的感覺運動功能，日常功能，自我效能和生活質量的療效。
研究設計：採用隨機分派、單盲試驗設計，進行前測，後測和追蹤測評估。慢性中風患者被隨機分派至雙側機器誘導雙側上肢練習組（RBAT）或雙側機器誘導鏡像治療組（RMT）。所有患者每次接受90分鐘的治療，每週3天，連續6週，共18次治療。
成效評量：結果測量包括：傅格梅爾動作量表 (Fugl-Meyer Assessment)、英國醫學研究顧問團體量表 (Medical research council scale)、修訂版諾丁漢感覺評估量表(Revised Nottingham Sensory Assessment)、沃夫動作功能測驗（Wolf Motor Function Test）、功能性獨立測驗（Functional independent measure）、動作活動記錄表（Motor Activity Log）、ABILHAND 問卷（ABILHAND Questionnaire）、中風影響量表(Stoke Impact Scale)、目標達成量表（goal attainment scale）、諾丁漢延伸性日常生活量表（Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale）和腕動計測量活動度。所有參與者進行三次評估（治療前，治療後和三個月後）。 本研究使用Wilcoxon signed-rank test和Mann-Whitney U test分析組內和組別間差異。
結果：共有17名參與者隨機分配到兩組。各組之間沒有基線差異。兩組參與者在各評估量表有顯著進步並能維持至追蹤測。在主要指標中，RMT組在傅格梅爾動作量表和修訂版諾丁漢感覺評估量表上較有進步趨勢。在次要指標中，RMT組在諾丁漢延伸性日常生活量表和中風影響量表上較有進步趨勢。另一方面，RBAT組在目標達成量表上發現了較有進步趨勢。
結論：本研究的初步研究顯示雙側機器誘導鏡像治療在運動能力方面顯著比雙側機器誘導雙側上肢練習有更大進步, 在感覺功能、日常生活活動和生活質量較有進步趨勢。另外，雙側機器誘導雙側上肢練習則在實現自我復健目標上較有進步趨勢。本研究是前軀研究, 且樣本數不足, 未來需要招募更多受試者來進一步深入研究療效結果。
關鍵字: 雙側機器誘導，雙側上肢訓練，鏡像治療，中風

Background and Study Purpose: Stroke is one of the major medical conditions that leads to long-term disability and causes heavy health care. Current evidence indicates that robot-aided therapy, mirror therapy (MT), and bilateral arm training (BAT) are prominent approaches to improve upper extremity motor function and daily function in patients with stroke. These approaches are bilateral approaches to intensive practice based on theories of neuroplasticity. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of bilateral robotic priming combined with BAT versus bilateral robotic priming combined with MT on sensorimotor function, daily function, self-efficacy, and quality of life in patients with chronic stroke.
Methods: A randomized and single-blinded trial design with pretest, posttest and follow-up assessment was conducted. Participants with chronic stroke were randomly assigned to receive bilateral robotic priming combined with BAT (RBAT) or bilateral robotic priming combined with MT (RMT). All participants received a daily 90-minute therapy session, 3 days/week for 6 weeks, for a total of 18 sessions.
Outcome Measures: The outcome measures were included: upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-UE), Revised Nottingham Sensory Assessment (rNSA), Medical Research Council (MRC), Motor Activity Log (MAL), Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale Stroke (NEADL), Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), Impact Scale Version 3.0 (SIS) and the wrist-worn accelerometers. All participants were assessed three times (before, immediately after intervention and follow-up test). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis.
Results: A total of 17 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two group. There were no baseline differences between groups. Both conditions demonstrated significant within-group improvements in outcome measures and retained the improvements to 3 months. In primary outcome measures, a positive trend was observed in the RMT group in the FMA-UE, rNSA. In the secondary outcome measures, a positive trend was found in RMT group on NEADL and SIS. On the other hand, a positive trend was found in RBAT group on GAS
Conclusion: On the primary outcomes, the RMT group significantly gained greater benefit on motor ability than the RBAT and a positive trend on sensory function. On the secondary outcomes, the RMT group showed positive trends on IADL and quality of life. On the order hand, RBAT group show a positive trend on the achievement of self-expectation. More participants are needed to support this preliminary findings.
Key words: bilateral robotic priming, bilateral arm training, mirror therapy, stroke rehabilitation

誌謝………………………………………………………………………………..………i
中文摘要…………………………………………………………………………….……ii
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………...…...….iv
CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………………vi
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………..………viii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………….…….ix
Chapter Ⅰ Introduction…………….……………………..………………………………...1
1.1 Background and Purpose…………………………………………………...……....1
1.2 Study Hypotheses……………………………………………………………..….....5
Chapter Ⅱ Methods…………….………………………………………………………….6
2.1 Study design ……………………………………………………………………......6
2.2 Participants………………………………………………………………..……...…6
2.3 Intervention Protocols and setting…………………………………………….…7
2.4 Interventions………………………………………………………………………. 8
2.5 Outcome Measures………………………………………………………….......... 10
2.6 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………….....…..16
Chapter Ⅲ. Result…………………...………………………………………..…...……..17
3.1 Participants’ baseline characteristics…………………………..….17 3.2 Effects of Intervention on the Primary Outcome Measures …………...….............18
3.3 Effects of Intervention on the Secondary Outcome Measures …………….……...19
3.4 Possible adverse effect……………………………………..………………...……22
Chapter Ⅳ. Discussion………………………………………………………………..…23
4.1 Summary of the Study Results……………………………………...………..……23
4.2 The Benefits of RMT group………………………………………………....…….24
4.3 The Benefits of RBAT group…………………………………...........……25
4.4 Study Implication……………………………………………………………….....26
4.5 Study Limitation………………………………………………………………..…26
Chapter Ⅴ. Conclusions…………………….…………………………………..……..…28
References………………………………………………………………………………..29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Flow Chart of the Study Procedure………………………………………….36
Figure 2. Experimental Materials and Setting………………………………………..…37
Figure 3. Treatment Procedures for two groups……………………..…39
Figure 4. The changes on FMA-UE score……………………...……………………40
Figure 5. The changes on rNSA score……..……………………………………….…40
Figure 6. The changes on MRC score……..………………………………………..…41
Figure 7. The changes on ABILHAND score……..……………….………..…41
Figure 8. The changes on WMFT-Time score……….……….….………..…42
Figure 9. The changes on WMFT-Quality score………..….………..…42
Figure 10. The changes on CAHAI score……….………………..………..…43
Figure 11. The changes on MAL score……….……………....….………..…43
Figure 12. The changes on NEADL score……….…………….....……..…44
Figure 13. The changes on FIM score……….………………..….…….…..…44
Figure 14. The changes on GAS score……….…………………….…….…..…45
Figure 15. The changes on SIS score……….……………………..…….………45
Figure 16. The changes on Actigraphy score……….……….…….……46
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of clinical characteristics….…………….47
Table 2. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of FMA-UE by group.………...…...……48
Table 3. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of FMA-UE from posttreatment to follow-up by group………………………………………………………………………………49
Table 4. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of rNSA by group.……….........…...……50
Table 5. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of MRC by group.……….........…...….…51
Table 6. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of ABILHAND by group……...…...……52
Table 7. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of WMFT by group.……….............……53
Table 8. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of CAHAI by group……………………..54
Table 9. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of MAL by group………………………..55
Table 10. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of MAL from posttreatment to follow-up by group…………………………………………………………………………...……..56
Table 11. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of NEADL by group…………………..57
Table 12. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of FIM by group…………………...…..58
Table 13. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of GAS by group………..……………..59
Table 14. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of SIS by group……………….………..60
Table 15. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of SIS from posttreatment to follow-up by group…………………………………………………….………………………...……..61
Table 16. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of the ratio of affect and nonaffect arm activity counts……………………………………………………………………………62
Table 17. The summary table of results…………………………………………..63
Table 18. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of MAS by group………………………64

Chang, J.-J., Tung, W.-L., Wu, W.-L., Huang, M.-H., & Su, F.-C. (2007). Effects of robot-aided bilateral force-induced isokinetic arm training combined with conventional rehabilitation on arm motor function in patients with chronic stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(10), 1332-1338.
Charalambous, C. P. (2014). Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. In Classic Papers in Orthopaedics (pp. 415-417): Springer.
Chuang, L.-L., Lin, K.-C., Hsu, A.-L., Wu, C.-Y., Chang, K.-C., Li, Y.-C., et al. (2015). Reliability and validity of a vertical numerical rating scale supplemented with a faces rating scale in measuring fatigue after stroke. Health and quality of life outcomes, 13(1), 91.
Coupar, F., Pollock, A., van Wijck, F., Morris, J., & Langhorne, P. (2010). Simultaneous bilateral training for improving arm function after stroke. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Eftekhar, P., Mochizuki, G., Dutta, T., Richardson, D., & Brooks, D. (2016). Goal attainment scaling in individuals with upper limb spasticity post stroke. Occupational Therapy International, 23(4), 379-389.
Fugl-Meyer, A. R., Jääskö, L., Leyman, I., Olsson, S., & Steglind, S. (1975). The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 7(1), 13-31.
Gregson, J. M., Leathley, M. J., Moore, A. P., Smith, T. L., Sharma, A. K., & Watkins, C. L. (2000). Reliability of measurements of muscle tone and muscle power in stroke patients. Age and Ageing,29(3), 223-228.
Hsieh, Y.-W., Liing, R.-J., Lin, K.-C., Wu, C.-Y., Liou, T.-H., Lin, J.-C., et al. (2016). Sequencing bilateral robot-assisted arm therapy and constraint-induced therapy improves reach to press and trunk kinematics in patients with stroke. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 13, 31.
Hsieh, Y.-W., Lin, K.-C., Horng, Y.-S., Wu, C.-Y., Wu, T.-C., & Ku, F.-L. (2014). Sequential combination of robot-assisted therapy and constraint-induced therapy in stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Neurology, 261(5), 1037-1045.
Hsieh, Y.-W., Wu, C.-Y., Liao, W.-W., Lin, K.-C., Wu, K.-Y., & Lee, C.-Y. (2011). Effects of treatment intensity in upper limb robot-assisted therapy for chronic stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 25(6), 503-511.
Hsieh, Y.-W., Wu, C.-Y., Lin, K.-C., Chang, Y.-F., Chen, C.-L., & Liu, J.-S. (2009). Responsiveness and validity of three outcome measures of motor function after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke, 40(4), 1386-1391.
Hsieh, Y.-W., Wu, C.-Y., Lin, K.-C., Yao, G., Wu, K.-Y., & Chang, Y.-J. (2012). Dose-response relationship of robot-assisted stroke motor rehabilitation: the impact of initial motor status. Stroke, 43(10), 2729-2734.
Hsieh, Y.-W., Wu, C.-Y., Wang, W.-E., Lin, K.-C., Chang, K.-C., Chen, C.-C., et al. (2017). Bilateral robotic priming before task-oriented approach in subacute stroke rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 31(2), 225-233.
Hsu, H.-Y., Chiu, H.-Y., Kuan, T.-S., Tsai, C.-L., Su, F.-C., Kuo, L.-C., et al. (2019). Robotic-assisted therapy with bilateral practice improves task and motor performance in the upper extremities of chronic stroke patients: A randomised controlled trial. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, (2019)
Huang, Y.-H., Wu, C.-Y., Hsieh, Y.-W., & Lin, K.-C. (2010). Predictors of change in quality of life after distributed constraint-induced therapy in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 24(6), 559-566.
Hung, C.-S., Hsieh, Y.-W., Wu, C.-Y., Lin, Y.-T., Lin, K.-C., & Chen, C.-L. (2016). The effects of combination of robot-assisted therapy with task-specific or impairment-oriented training on motor function and quality of life in chronic stroke. PM&R, 8(8), 721-729.
Lee, M.-J., Lee, J.-H., Koo, H.-M., & Lee, S.-M. (2017). Effectiveness of bilateral arm training for improving extremity function and activities of daily living performance in hemiplegic patients. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, 26(5), 1020-1025.
Lee, Y.-Y., Lin, K.-C., Wu, C.-Y., Liao, C.-H., Lin, J.-C., & Chen, C.-L. (2015). Combining afferent stimulation and mirror therapy for improving muscular, sensorimotor, and daily functions after chronic stroke: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94(10S), 859-868.
Lemmens, R. J., Timmermans, A. A., Janssen-Potten, Y. J., Smeets, R. J., & Seelen, H. A. (2012). Valid and reliable instruments for arm-hand assessment at ICF activity level in persons with hemiplegia: a systematic review. BMC Neurology, 12(1), 21.
Liao, W.-W., Wu, C.-Y., Hsieh, Y.-W., Lin, K.-C., & Chang, W.-Y. (2012). Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation on daily function and real-world arm activity in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 26(2), 111-120.
Lin, K.-C., Chen, Y.-A., Chen, C.-L., Wu, C.-Y., & Chang, Y.-F. (2010). The effects of bilateral arm training on motor control and functional performance in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled study. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 24(1), 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968309345268.
Lin, K.-C., Chen, Y.-T., Huang, P.-C., Wu, C.-Y., Huang, W.-L., Yang, H.-W., et al. (2014). Effect of mirror therapy combined with somatosensory stimulation on motor recovery and daily function in stroke patients: a pilot study. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 113(7), 422-428.
Lin, K.-C., Huang, P.-C., Chen, Y.-T., Wu, C.-Y., & Huang, W.-L. (2014). Combining afferent stimulation and mirror therapy for rehabilitating motor function, motor control, ambulation, and daily functions after stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 28(2), 153-162.
Lincoln, N., Jackson, J., & Adams, S. (1998). Reliability and revision of the Nottingham Sensory Assessment for stroke patients. Physiotherapy, 84(8), 358-365.
McCombe Waller, S., & Whitall, J. (2008). Bilateral arm training: why and who benefits? NeuroRehabilitation, 23(1), 29-41.
Penta, M., Tesio, L., Arnould, C., Zancan, A., & Thonnard, J.-L. (2001). The ABILHAND questionnaire as a measure of manual ability in chronic stroke patients: Rasch-based validation and relationship to upper limb impairment. Stroke, 32(7), 1627-1634.
Platz, T., Pinkowski, C., van Wijck, F., Kim, I.-H., Di Bella, P., & Johnson, G. (2005). Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. Clinical Rehabilitation, 19(4), 404-411.
Skidmore, E. R., Whyte, E. M., Holm, M. B., Becker, J. T., Butters, M. A., Dew, M. A., et al. (2010). Cognitive and affective predictors of rehabilitation participation after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(2), 203-207.
Stinear, C. M., Barber, P. A., Coxon, J. P., Fleming, M. K., & Byblow, W. D. (2008). Priming the motor system enhances the effects of upper limb therapy in chronic stroke. Brain, 131(Pt 5), 1381-1390.
Stoykov, M. E., & Madhavan, S. (2015). Motor priming in neurorehabilitation. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 39(1), 33-42.
Stoykov, M. E., & Stinear, J. W. (2010). Active-passive bilateral therapy as a priming mechanism for individuals in the subacute phase of post-stroke recovery: a feasibility study. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89(11), 873-878.
Turner-Stokes, L. (2009). Goal attainment scaling (GAS) in rehabilitation: a practical guide. Clinical Rehabilitation, 23(4), 362-370.
Turner-Stokes, L. (2009). Goal attainment scaling (GAS) in rehabilitation: a practical guide. Clinical Rehabilitation, 23(4), 362-370
Wu, C.-Y., Huang, P.-C., Chen, Y.-T., Lin, K.-C., & Yang, H.-W. (2013). Effects of mirror therapy on motor and sensory recovery in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94(6), 1023-1030.
Wu, C.-Y., Yang, C.-L., Chen, M.-D., Lin, K.-C., & Wu, L.-L. (2013). Unilateral versus bilateral robotassisted rehabilitation on arm-trunk control and functions post stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 10(1), 35.
Wu, C.-Y., Yang, C.-L., Chuang, L.-L., Lin, K.-C., Chen, H.-C., Chen, M.-D., et al. (2012). Effect of therapist-based versus robot-assisted bilateral arm training on motor control, functional performance, and quality of life after chronic stroke: a clinical trial. Physical Therapy, 92(8), 1006-1016.