Effect of robot-assisted gait training on the biomechanical properties of burn scars: a single-blind, randomized controlled trial

Yoon Soo Cho; So Young Joo; Cheong Hoon Seo

doi:10.1093/burnst/tkac026

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Effect of robot-assisted gait training on the biomechanical properties of burn scars: a single-blind, randomized controlled trial

更新时间：2023-09-05

- Effect of robot-assisted gait training on the biomechanical properties of burn scars: a single-blind, randomized controlled trial
- Burns & Trauma Vol. 10, Issue 1, (2022)
- 作者机构：
  
  Hallym University
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.1093/burnst/tkac026
  CLC：
- Published：2022，
  
  Published Online：7 October 2022，
扫描看全文
Yoon Soo Cho, So Young Joo, Cheong Hoon Seo, Effect of robot-assisted gait training on the biomechanical properties of burn scars: a single-blind, randomized controlled trial, Burns & Trauma, Volume 10, 2022, tkac026, https://doi.org/10.1093/burnst/tkac026
DOI：

Yoon Soo Cho, So Young Joo, Cheong Hoon Seo, Effect of robot-assisted gait training on the biomechanical properties of burn scars: a single-blind, randomized controlled trial, Burns & Trauma, Volume 10, 2022, tkac026, https://doi.org/10.1093/burnst/tkac026 DOI：

摘要

Abstract

BackgroundRobot-assisted gait training (RAGT) is more effective in the range of motion (ROM) and isometric strength in patients with burns than conventional training. However

concerns have been raised about whether RAGT might negatively affect the scars of patients with burns. Therefore

we investigated the effects of RAGT-induced mechanical load on the biomechanical properties of burn scars.MethodsThis was a single-blind

randomized clinical trial conducted on inpatients admitted to the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine between September 2020 and August 2021. RAGT was conducted for 30 min per day

five days a week for 12 weeks and the control group received conventional gait training for 12 weeks. The pre-training ROM of lower extremity joints was evaluated and the levels of melanin

erythema

trans-epidermal water loss

scar distensibility and elasticity were assessed before training and at 4 and 12 weeks after training. Finally

19 patients in the gait assistance robot (GAR) group and 20 patients in the control group completed the 12-week trial and all evaluations.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the epidemiologic characteristics

pre-training ROM of joints and pre-training biomechanical properties of the burn scar between the groups (p > 0.05 for all). None of the patients experienced skin abrasion around the burn scar where the fastening belts were applied or musculoskeletal or cardiovascular adverse events during the training. Scar thickness significantly increased in both groups (p = 0.037 and p = 0.019) and scar distensibility significantly decreased in the control group (p = 0.011) during the training. Hysteresis was significantly decreased in the GAR group during the training (p = 0.038). The GAR and control groups showed significant difference in the change in the values of hysteresis between pre-training and 12 weeks after training (p = 0.441 and p = 0.049).ConclusionsRAGT significantly decreased hysteresis in hypertrophic burn scars and did not cause a significant decrease in skin distensibility. Moreover

no skin complications around the burn scars were detected during RAGT.Trial registrationThis study registered on the Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0005204).

关键词

Keywords

Robot-assisted gait trainingBurnScar biomechanical propertiesHysteresisBurn rehabilitation

references

1.Richard R, Santos-Lozada AR. Burn patient acuity demographics, scar contractures, and rehabilitation treatment time related to patient outcomes: the ACT study. J Burn Care Res. 2017;38:230–42.

2.Latarjet J, Choinère M. Pain in burn patients. Burns. 1995;21:344–8.

3.Joo SY, Lee SY, Cho YS, Lee KJ, Seo CH. Effects of robot-assisted gait training in patients with burn injury on lower extremity: a single-blind, randomized controlled trial. J Clin Med. 2020;9:2813.

4.Cen Y, Chai J, Chen H, Chen J, Guo G, Han C, et al. Guidelines for burn rehabilitation in China. Burns Trauma. 2015;3:20.

5.Esselman PC. Burn rehabilitation: an overview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:S3–6.

6.Van Peppen RP, Kwakkel G, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hendriks HJ, Van Der Wees PJ, Dekker J. The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what’s the evidence? Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:833–62.

7.Richards CL, Malouin F, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Bouchard JP, Brunet D. Task-specific physical therapy for optimization of gait recovery in acute stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:612–20.

8.Nilsson A, Vreede KS, Häglund V, Dawamoto H, Sankai Y, Borg J. Gait training early after stroke with a new exoskeleton – the hybrid assistive limb: a study of safety and feasibility. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:92.

9.Galli M, Cimolin V, De Pandis MF, Le Pera D, Sova I, Albertini G, et al. Robot-assisted gait training versus treadmill training in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a kinematic evaluation with gait profile score. Funct Neurol. 2016;31:163–70.

10.Tanaka Y, Oka H, Nakayama S, Ueno T, Matsudaira K, Miura T, et al. Improvement of walking ability during postoperative rehabilitation with the hybrid assistive limb after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled study. SAGE Open Med. 2017;5:2050312117712888. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312117712888.

11.Joo SY, Lee SY, Cho YS, Lee KJ, Kim SH, Seo CH. Effectiveness of robot-assisted gait training on patients with burns: a preliminary study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2020;23:888–93.

12.Aarabi S, Bhatt KA, Shi Y, Paterno J, Chang EI, Loh SA, et al. Mechanical load initiates hypertrophic scar formation through decreased cellular apoptosis. FASEB J. 2007;21:3250–61.

13.Kolpakov V, Rekhter MD, Gordon D, Wang WH, Kulik TJ. Effect of mechanical forces on growth and matrix protein synthesis in the in vitro pulmonary artery. Analysis of the role of individual cell types. Circ Res. 1995;77:823–31.

14.Maggioni S, Melendez-Calderon A, Van Asseldonk E, Klamroth-Marganska V, Lünenburger L, Riener R, et al. Robot-aided assessment of lower extremity functions: a review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:72.

15.Nedelec B, Correa JA, de Oliveira A, LaSalle L, Perrault I. Longitudinal burn scar quantification. Burns. 2014;40:1504–12.

16.Nedelec B, Correa JA, Rachelska G, Armour A, LaSalle L. Quantitative measurement of hypertrophic scar: intrarater reliability, sensitivity, and specificity. J Burn Care Res. 2008;29:489–500.

17.Park JW, Seo CH, Han SH, Lee YG. Sympathetic influence on biomechanical skin properties after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:236–43.

18.Ryu HS, Joo YH, Kim SO, Park KC, Youn SW. Influence of age and regional differences on skin elasticity as measured by the Cutometer®. Skin Res Technol. 2008;14:354–8.

19.Nguyen DQ, Potokar TS, Price P. An objective long-term evaluation of Integra (a dermal skin substitute) and split thickness skin grafts, in acute burns and reconstructive surgery. Burns. 2010;36:23–8.

20.Dobrev H. In vivo study of skin mechanical properties in psoriasis vulgaris. Acta Derm Venereol. 2000;80:263–6.

21.Cho YS, Lee J, Joo SY, Seo CH. Crosstalk among adipose tissue, vitamin D level, and biomechanical properties of hypertrophic burn scars. Burns. 2019;45:1430–7.

22.Cunningham JB, McCrum-Gardner E. Power, effect and sample size using GPower: practical issues for researchers and members of research ethics committees. Evidence-Based Midwifery. 2007;5:132–7.

23.Wiśniewska A, Liber-Kneć A. Influence of a skin tissue anisotropy on mechanical hysteresis. Technical Transactions/Czasopismo Techniczne. 2016;15:125–36.

24.Trisliana Perdanasari A, Torresetti M, Grassetti L, Nicoli F, Zhang YX, Dashti T, et al. Intralesional injection treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids: a systematic review regarding outcomes. Burns Trauma. 2015;3:14.

25.Daly CH. Biomechanical properties of dermis. J Invest Dermatol. 1982;79:17–20.

26.Henry F, Goffin V, Piérard-Franchimont C, Piérard GE. Mechanical properties of skin in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, types I, II, and III. Pediatr Dermatol. 1996;13:464–7.

27.Piérard GE, Piérard-Franchimont C, Vanderplaetsen S, Franchimont N, Gaspard U, Malaise M. Relationship between bone mass density and tensile strength of the skin in women. Eur J Clin Investig. 2001;31:731–5.

28.Ehrlich HP. Collagen considerations in scarring and regenerative repair. In: Garg HG, Longaker MT. (eds.). Scarless wound healing. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000, 99–113.

29.Finnerty CC, Jeschke MG, Branski LK, Barret JP, Dziewulski P, Herndon DN. Hypertrophic scarring: the greatest unmet challenge after burn injury. Lancet. 2016;388:1427–36.

30.Linares HA. From wound to scar. Burns. 1996;22:339–52.

31.Zhu Z, Ding J, Tredget EE. The molecular basis of hypertrophic scars. Burns Trauma. 2016;4:2.

32.Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T. Influence of static stretching on viscoelastic properties of human tendon structures in vivo. J Appl Physiol. 2001;90:520–7.

33.Mizuno K, Boudko SP, Engel J, Bächinger HP. Kinetic hysteresis in collagen folding. Biophys J. 2010;98:3004–14.

34.Piérard GE, Piérard S, Delvenne P, Piérard-Franchimont C. In vivo evaluation of the skin tensile strength by the suction method: pilot study coping with hysteresis and creep extension. ISRN Dermatol. 2013;2013:841217. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/841217.

35.Solan A, Dahl SL, Niklason LE. Effects of mechanical stretch on collagen and cross-linking in engineered blood vessels. Cell Transplant. 2009;18:915–21.

36.Hussain SH, Limthongkul B, Humphreys TR. The biomechanical properties of the skin. Dermato Surg. 2013;39:193–203.

37.Uitto VJ, Larjava H. Extracellular matrix molecules and their receptors: an overview with special emphasis on periodontal tissues. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1991;2:323–54.

38.Verhaegen PD, Schouten HJ, Tigchelaar-Gutter W, van Marle J, van Noorden CJ, Middelkoop E, et al. Adaptation of the dermal collagen structure of human skin and scar tissue in response to stretch: an experimental study. Wound Repair Regen. 2012;20:658–66.

39.Nam KY, Kim HJ, Kwon BS, Park JW, Lee HJ, Yoo A. Robot-assisted gait training (Lokomat) improves walking function and activity in people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14:1–13.

40.Chang MC, Chun MH. Use of robots in rehabilitative treatment. K Korean Med Assoc. 2015;58:141–6.

41.Yang X, Li GH, Wang HJ, Wang CY. Continuous passive motion after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of associated effects on clinical outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:1763–78.

查看原文

Views

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

Luminol-conjugated cyclodextrin biological nanoparticles for the treatment of severe burn-induced intestinal barrier disruption

The impact of burn injury on the central nervous system

The impact of COVID-19 on clinical outcomes of burn patients

In vitro comparison of human plasma-based and self-assembled tissue-engineered skin substitutes: two different manufacturing processes for the treatment of deep and difficult to heal injuries

A single-stage bilayered skin reconstruction using Glyaderm® as an acellular dermal regeneration template results in improved scar quality: an intra-individual randomized controlled trial

Related Author

Yajun Song

Yang Li

Wengang Hu

Feng Li

Hao Sheng

Chibing Huang

Xin Gou

Jingming Hou

Related Institution

Department of Rehabilitation

Department of Urology, Chongqing University Three Gorges Hospital

Institute of Burn Research, Southwest Hospital

Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University

The Army Medical University

⁰