The effect of robot-assisted versus standard training on motor function following subacute rehabilitation after ischemic stroke – protocol for a randomised controlled trial nested in a prospective cohort (RoboRehab)

Body weight unloaded treadmill training has shown limited efficacy in further improving functional capacity after subacute rehabilitation of ischemic stroke patients. Dynamic robot assisted bodyweight unloading is a novel technology that may provide superior training stimuli and continued functional improvements in individuals with residual impairments in the chronic phase after the ischemic insult. The aim of the present study is to investigate the effect of dynamic robot-assisted versus standard training, initiated 6 months post-stroke, on motor function, physical function, fatigue, and quality of life in stroke-affected individuals still suffering from moderate-to-severe disabilities after subacute rehabilitation. Stroke-affected individuals with moderate to severe disabilities will be recruited into a prospective cohort with measurements at 3-, 6-, 12- and 18-months post-stroke. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be nested in the prospective cohort with measurements pre-intervention (Pre), post-intervention (Post) and at follow-up 6 months following post-intervention testing. The present RCT will be conducted as a multicentre parallel-group superiority of intervention study with assessor-blinding and a stratified block randomisation design. Following pre-intervention testing, participants in the RCT study will be randomised into robot-assisted training (intervention) or standard training (active control). Participants in both groups will train 1:1 with a physiotherapist two times a week for 6 months (groups are matched for time allocated to training). The primary outcome is the between-group difference in change score of Fugl-Meyer Lower Extremity Assessment from pre-post intervention on the intention-to-treat population. A per-protocol analysis will be conducted analysing the differences in change scores of the participants demonstrating acceptable adherence. A priori sample size calculation allowing the detection of the minimally clinically important between-group difference of 6 points in the primary outcome (standard deviation 6 point, α = 5