Document Type


Publication Date



This article is the author's final published version in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, Volume 20, Issue 1, 2023, Article number 134.

The published version is available at

Copyright © The Author(s) 2023.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecom- applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.


INTRODUCTION: Practicality of implementation and dosing of supplemental gait training in an acute stroke inpatient rehabilitation setting are not well studied but can have positive impact on outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of early, intense supplemental gait training in inpatient stroke rehabilitation, compare functional outcomes and the specific mode of delivery.

DESIGN AND SETTING: Assessor blinded, randomized controlled trial in a tertiary Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility.

PARTICIPANTS: Thirty acute post-stroke patients with unilateral hemiparesis (≥ 18 years of age with a lower limb MAS ≤ 3).

INTERVENTION: Lokomat® or conventional gait training (CGT) in addition to standard mandated therapy time.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of therapy sessions; adverse events; functional independence measure (FIM motor); functional ambulation category (FAC); passive range of motion (PROM); modified Ashworth scale (MAS); 5 times sit-to-stand (5x-STS); 10-m walk test (10MWT); 2-min walk test (2MWT) were assessed before (pre) and after training (post).

RESULTS: The desired supplemental therapy was implemented during normal care delivery hours and the patients generally tolerated the sessions well. Both groups improved markedly on several measures; the CGT group obtained nearly 45% more supplemental sessions (12.8) than the Lokomat® group (8.9). Both groups showed greater FIM improvement scores (discharge - admission) than those from a reference group receiving no supplemental therapy. An overarching statistical comparison between methods was skewed towards a differential benefit (but not significant) in the Lokomat® group with medium effect sizes. By observation, the robotic group completed a greater number of steps, on average. These results provide some evidence for Lokomat® being a more efficient tool for gait retraining by providing a more optimal therapy "dose".

CONCLUSIONS: With careful planning, supplemental therapy was possible with minimal intrusion to schedules and was well tolerated. Participants showed meaningful functional improvement with relatively little supplemental therapy over a relatively short time in study.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.