Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 7659893, 7 pages
Clinical Study

ArmAssist Robotic System versus Matched Conventional Therapy for Poststroke Upper Limb Rehabilitation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

1Clinic for Rehabilitation “Dr. Miroslav Zotović”, Faculty of Medicine, University Belgrade, Sokobanjska 13, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
2Tecnalia Serbia Ltd., Vladetina 13 and Signals and Systems Department, School of Electrical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73, 11200 Belgrade, Serbia
3Neurorehabilitation Area at the Health Division of TECNALIA, San Sebastian, Spain

Correspondence should be addressed to Ljubica M. Konstantinović

Received 1 November 2016; Revised 15 December 2016; Accepted 12 January 2017; Published 31 January 2017

Academic Editor: Erwin van Wegen

Copyright © 2017 Tijana J. Dimkić Tomić et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


The ArmAssist is a simple low-cost robotic system for upper limb motor training that combines known benefits of repetitive task-oriented training, greater intensity of practice, and less dependence on therapist assistance. The aim of this preliminary study was to compare the efficacy of ArmAssist (AA) robotic training against matched conventional arm training in subacute stroke subjects with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment. Twenty-six subjects were enrolled within 3 months of stroke and randomly assigned to the AA group or Control group ( each). Both groups were trained 5 days per week for 3 weeks. The primary outcome measure was Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) motor score, and the secondary outcomes were Wolf Motor Function Test-Functional Ability Scale (WMFT-FAS) and Barthel index (BI). The AA group, in comparison to the Control group, showed significantly greater increases in FMA-UE score (18.0 ± 9.4 versus 7.5 ± 5.5, ) and WMFT-FAS score (14.1 ± 7.9 versus 6.7 ± 7.8, ) after 3 weeks of treatment, whereas the increase in BI was not significant (21.2 ± 24.8 versus 13.1 ± 10.7, ). There were no adverse events. We conclude that arm training using the AA robotic device is safe and able to reduce motor deficits more effectively than matched conventional arm training in subacute phase of stroke. The study has been registered at the, ID: NCT02729649.