ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03319992RH-LEXOSUpdated Apr 13, 2021

Upper Limb Task-Oriented Rehabilitation With Robotic Exoskeleton for Hemiparetic Stroke Patients

A Phase 2 interventional study of Upper Arm Rehabilitation Light Exoskeleton (RH-LEXOS) in Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), Chronic Disease and Stroke Rehabilitation, sponsored by Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna di Pisa. Completed at 1 site in Italy. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 85 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-04-13.

Sponsored by Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna di Pisa · Phase 2, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 1 year 3 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Jul 2016, registered Oct 2017).
Phase
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
26
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 85 Years
Sex
All
01

Where this study stands

Counted across the records on this site · 2026-11-12

Among 345 studies in Stroke with a site in Italy — 92 open to participants now, 105 under way, 3 of them phase 3. Stroke · Italy.

Enrollment
221st of 263
26 · median 72
Started
2016
with 17 others
Phase 2
8 of 345
none open now
Registered
116th of 345
by date

Among the 345 studies in Stroke with a site in Italy, this one is the 221st largest by enrollment of the 263 interventional ones that give a count, is one of 18 that started in 2016, is one of 8 in phase 2, and was the 116th registered.

Stroke

8,255 studies on the registry are indexed under Stroke; 2,056 are open to participants now.

Browse Stroke studies →

Open to participants now

92 of the 345 studies in Stroke with a site in Italy are open now. Recruiting first, the newest first:

87 more — sign in →

All 92 open studies →

A study can be open while its sites in Italy have not opened yet or have stopped. Only those recruiting at a site in Italy →

Who these studies take

Of the 1,415 Stroke studies recruiting now, 697 (49%) set no upper age limit and 280 (20%) stop at 75 or younger; 77 take children under 18; 196 take healthy volunteers.

This study: 18 Years to 85 Years · all sexes · no healthy volunteers.

The full table on the hub →

This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.

Was this useful?
Watch this landscapeDownload CSVNarrow it in search →With an account: a weekly mail of what changed among 345 studies in Stroke with a site in Italy, or all of them as a file.
02

Study summary

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of an assisted rehabilitation treatment through a robotic exoskeleton device on the functional recovery in a group of patients with hemiparesis from lesion of the first motor neuron (post-stroke), compared with a group of patients subjected to a conventional rehabilitation treatment. The patients enrolled in the study are chronic stroke injured with right hemiparesis of moderate to severe degree, by the system injury pyramid, never undergoing rehabilitation treatment with robots.

03

Conditions studied

  • Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA)
  • Chronic Disease
  • Stroke Rehabilitation

Keywords

  • Robotics [H01.671.293.643]
  • Exoskeleton Device [E07.341]
  • Rehabilitation Research [H01.770.644.145.472]
  • Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine [H02.403.680]
  • Exercise Therapy [E02.779.483]
  • Patient Outcome Assessment [N05.715.360.575.575.399]
04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 85 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • diagnosis of a first-ever left hemisphere ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke at least 6 months prior to entry into the study;
  • minimum ability for shoulder humeral elevation;
  • upper-extremity motor function Fugl-Meyer (FM) score ≥ 15(out of 66);
  • absence of neurological or muscular disorders that interfere with neuromuscular function;
  • absence of severe cognitive deficits that would limit patients' ability to complete the study;
  • minimum score of 2 in the Modified Ashworth Scale;
  • not participating in any experimental rehabilitation or drug studies at the same time
  • no previous experience with robotic treatments.
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
26 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • No intervention
    Conventional treatment

    The conventional treatment arm was conducted according to a set of exercises that were specifically designed in order to match the robotic treatment. Patients received both physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) session, administered by the physiotherapists of the hospital. The therapist will provide a specific conventional treatment comparable with the robotic treatment in terms of session time and therapeutic goals.

  • Experimental
    Robotic treatment

    The patients enrolled in the robotic arm are going to be undergone a series of passive, assisted and active mobilization in upper limb task-oriented exercises implemented in 3d virtual environments. Briefly speaking, these tasks promote the upper arm multi-joints coordination during the execution of reaching movements and grasping actions of fixed virtual objects displaced in the space.

    Device: Upper Arm Rehabilitation Light Exoskeleton (RH-LEXOS)

Interventions

  • DeviceUpper Arm Rehabilitation Light Exoskeleton (RH-LEXOS)

    RH-LEXOS is a robotic exoskeleton device to support the rehabilitation of stroke patients. This system is conceived for the force assistance, integrated in a Virtual Reality system that allows implementing rehabilitative exercises highly interactive and engaging for the patients. Passive, assisted and active mobilization of upper arm is provided through the use of the exoskeleton robotic device within high intensive, repetitive, task-oriented exercises and an objective and reliable mean for monitoring patients' progress.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA( Score

    The null hypothesis tested in this study was the change in motor function domain of the upper extremity portion of the Fugl-Meyer assessment in the Robotic Group (Robotic Treatment) would be the same as the one obtained by the Control Group (Conventional Treatment). The FMA outcome is further divided and analyzed in terms of sub-items. In particular, the motor FMA score is divided into proximal (shoulder and elbow movement, 36 points) and distal (hand and wrist movement, 24 points) sub-items.

    Time frame: baseline and 6 weeks

Secondary outcomes

  1. Functional scale: Bimanual Activity Test (BAT)

    The BAT is a functional scale designed to quantify the contribution of patient's affected upper limb to execute 25 common Activities of Daily Living such as Loosen and tighten the cap of a bottle , or unscrew a bolt. The elapsed time for accomplishing each task is measured and the therapist also give a score (ranging from 1 to 4) about the quality of each movement. The BAT data is analyzed also in terms of sub-items, divided into pinch-tasks and power-tasks collecting those items requiring fine and gross manipulation motor skills respectively.

    Time frame: baseline and 6 weeks

  2. Modified Ashworth (MA) scale

    The MA scale (Bohannon and Smith, 1987) is used to evaluate spasticity of the upper limb and to assess abnormal muscle tone at the shoulder and elbow. The MA scale is a 6-point scale: scores range from 0 to 4, where lower scores represent normal muscle tone and higher scores represent spasticity or increased resistance to passive movement. MA scores were averaged across the two joints and across testing directions (flexion, extension) to estimate abnormal muscle tone in the upper extremity (Zackowski, Dromerick et al., 2004)

    Time frame: baseline and 6 weeks

  3. Robotic kinesiological assessment of movement: Execution Time

    This measure is evaluated only in the group of patients performing robotic training, at the end of each session through the analysis of their performance during the execution of an evaluation exercise without robotic assistance.The patients are instructed to reach different targets positioned in front of them and placed around a vertical circumference at 12 equally spaced locations. The robotic measure is extracted for each outgoing (from the center to the target) movement. The execution time is measured as the elapsed time (measure in seconds) for accomplishing each movement, measured from the time of grasping of the virtual object at the start position to the release time at the target position.

    Time frame: At end of each session, during 6 weeks of enrollment in treatment

  4. Robotic kinesiological assessment of movement: Smoothness index

    This measure is evaluated only in the group of patients performing robotic training, at the end of each session through the analysis of their performance during the execution of an evaluation exercise without robotic assistance.The patients are instructed to reach different targets positioned in front of them and placed around a vertical circumference at 12 equally spaced locations. The robotic measure is extracted for each outgoing (from the center to the target) movement. The smoothness index is computed in the same interval period by counting the number of peaks in the velocity profile of movement, namely the Number of Movements Units (NMU) (Fasoli S, Krebs J Neurosci 2002)

    Time frame: At end of each session, during 6 weeks of enrollment in treatment

07

Study locations

1 site
  • University Hospital of Pisa
    Pisa, 56123, Italy
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Frisoli A, Barsotti M, Sotgiu E, Lamola G, Procopio C, Chisari C. A randomized clinical control study on the efficacy of three-dimensional upper limb robotic exoskeleton training in chronic stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022 Feb 4;19(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-00991-y. PubMed 35120546 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided — De-identified individual participant data for all primary and secondary outcome measures will be made available

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Jul 2016 to primary completion in Oct 2018, 27 months.

Of 113 non-industry phase 2 interventional studies under Stroke, half reached primary completion within 43 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 24 and three quarters within 60. This study's 27 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 133 studies reached it within 40 months; a quarter within 24 and three quarters within 59.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Oct 20, 2017
First posted
Oct 24, 2017
StartActual
Jul 20, 2016
Primary completionActual
Oct 20, 2018
CompletionActual
Nov 30, 2018
Last update
Apr 13, 2021
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 13, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03319992
Lead sponsor
Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna di Pisa
Collaborators
Azienda Ospedaliero, Universitaria Pisana
Responsible party
Antonio Frisoli (Prof, Office of Research and Development, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna di Pisa) — Principal investigator
First posted
Oct 24, 2017
Start date
Jul 20, 2016
Primary completion
Oct 20, 2018
Completion
Nov 30, 2018
Last update
Apr 13, 2021

Study contacts

Carmelo Carmelo, Carmelo
study director · U.O. Neurorehabilitation Division, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana (AOUP)

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion