ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of a stretching and strengthening exercise program using an upper extremity robot, as compared with a conventional occupational therapy program for upper extremity spasticity in stroke patients.MethodsSubjects were randomly divided into a robot-assisted therapy (RT) group and a conventional rehabilitation therapy (CT) group. RT group patients received RT and CT once daily for 30 minutes each, 5 days a week, for 2 weeks. RT was performed using an upper-extremity robot (Neuro-X; Apsun Inc., Seoul, Korea), and CT was administered by occupational therapists. CT group patients received CT alone twice daily for 30 minutes, 5 days a week, for 2 weeks. Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) was used to measure the spasticity of upper extremity. Manual muscle tests (MMT), Manual Function Tests (MFT), Brunnstrom stage, and the Korean version of Modified Barthel Index (K-MBI) were used to measure the strength and function of upper extremity. All measurements were obtained before and after 2-week treatment.ResultsThe RT and CT groups included 22 subjects each. After treatment, both groups showed significantly lower MAS scores and significant improvement in the MMT, MFT, Brunnstrom stage, and K-MBI scores. Treatment effects showed no significant differences between the two groups.ConclusionRT showed similar treatment benefits on spasticity, as compared to CT. The study results suggested that RT could be a useful method for continuous, repeatable, and relatively accurate range of motion exercise in stroke patients with spasticity.

Purpose: To compare the accuracy and efficacy of ultrasound (US)-guided versus blind pes anserinus bursa (PAB) injection in patients with pes anserinus tendinobursitis (PATB).Methods: Forty-seven patients with clinically diagnosed PATB were randomly assigned to a USguided group or a blind group of steroid injection. In the US-guided group, the injectate was delivered under sonographic visualization. In the blind group, the conventional technique was used without any visual guidance. After the PAB injection, the injectate location was identified using US in both groups. Treatment effects were assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) of knee tenderness. Outcomes were measured before, 1 week and 4 weeks after the injection.Results: Both groups showed pain relieving at 1 week and 4 weeks after the injection. The injectate in the US guided group were found to be accurately at the PAB in all subjects, whereas blind group were found to be just in 4 of 22 subjects. The US-guided group showed significant improvement of both of VAS scores compared to the blind group at 1 week and 4 weeks after the injection (P < .05). Conclusion:Our results suggest that US-guided PAB injection is more accurate and effective than blind injection in patients with PATB. K E Y W O R D Sbursa injection, pes anserinus tendinobursitis, ultrasound

The term “pes anserinus tendinobursitis (PATB)” is generally used to describe the inflammatory condition of pes anserinus bursa (PAB). Ultrasound (US) is widely used as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool to improve the assessment and management of joints and soft tissues. We performed the study to prove the accuracy and efficacy of US-guided injections in patients with PATB by comparing blind interventions. Forty-seven patients were randomly assigned to an US-guided and a blind injection group. The patients in the US-guided group were given injections under sonographic visualization. Otherwise, in the blind group, injections were provided in the conventional technique without any sonographic guidance. After the management, the accuracy of the injections was assessed by identifying the injectate location using the US. Treatment efficacy was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) of knee tenderness. The US-guided group showed that the injectates were located at the PAB accurately in all participants, whereas the blind group revealed that the materials were found to be at the bursa side only in 4 out of 22 patients. VAS scores of the US-guided group significantly improved compared to the blind group. In conclusion, US-guided PAB injections are more accurate and efficacious than blind approaches.