Posts Tagged rehabilitation technology

[NEWS] Bioness Introduces Key Updates to Rehabilitation Technology at the American Physical Therapy Association’s Combined Sections Meeting

Technology updates provide clinicians new training options for patients to maximize therapy sessions

 


NEWS PROVIDED BY Bioness, Inc.  Jan 22, 2019


 

VALENCIA, Calif.Jan. 22, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — Bioness, Inc., the leading provider of state-of-the-art, clinically supported rehabilitation and pain management medical devices, will be highlighting key updates to the L300 Go™ FES system and Vector® Gait and Safety System at this year’s American Physical Therapy Association’s Combined Sections Meeting being held in Washington D.C. from January 23-26, 2019.

For the first time ever, Bioness will offer L300 Go Cycle Training Mode which will allow users of the L300 Go System to train and exercise on a stationary bike. Therapists can now use custom timing settings to easily configure stationary bikes for patients to use with the L300 Go in their clinics.  In addition, the improved Thigh Stand-Alone with 3D motion detection technology eliminates the need for a foot sensor ensuring a simple and easy setup with accurate stimulation meant to provide patients greater control of flexion or extension of the knee for a more natural gait.  It’s Improved Mobility. Made Easier.

The Vector Gait and Safety System is the global leader in over-ground body weight support systems and with the launch of Vector 2.2 software, continues to improve. New Force-based Active Body Control provides the ability to perform an extensive variety of exercises while actively preventing falls. Equally important, treadmill training has been integrated with the Biodex Trainer 3, allowing you to control the Vector Elite System and treadmill with one simple-to-use interface.

“With the new developments showcased at this year’s APTA-CSM we’ve strengthened our position as the technology leader in rehab by empowering therapists with new features that will drive meaningful outcomes for their patients,” saidTodd Cushman, President and CEO of Bioness.  “Bioness continues its commitment to innovation by driving breakthroughs and developing the most effective technology for rehabilitation professionals in skilled, acute, inpatient and outpatient practices.”

Bioness will also feature the Company’s complete portfolio of innovative clinical solutions in Booth #719, including the following:

BITS® Bedside & Mobile Configurations
Most rehabilitation activities are designed to be performed from a standing position, however, many rehab patients are confined to their beds or restricted to seated activities for medical or safety reasons. To help tackle this challenge, Bioness has developed the BITS Bedside & Mobile configurations. The BITS Bedside configuration allows clinicians to engage rehab patients right at the bedside facilitating rehabilitative exercises for non-ambulatory patients. The BITS Mobile configuration is highly adaptable to challenging rehab environments where a full rehab gym is not available. With the BITS Bedside & Mobile configurations, clinicians can challenge and assess patients’ physical, visual, auditory, and cognitive abilities in virtually any treatment area. The BITS 2.0 software provides the ability to track and document progress with the goal of keeping patients engaged during this important phase of care.

H200® Wireless Hand Rehabilitation System
With more than 20 peer-reviewed and published clinical studies, the H200 System has been clinically shown to improve hand and upper extremity function during all stages of stroke rehabilitation. The System delivers non-invasive, functional electrical stimulation (FES) to improve hand function, reduce muscle spasms and prevent disuse atrophy. H200 Wireless is widely used in the Veterans Administration to promote functional hand use in spinal cord injury patients that lack the ability to perform daily activities including grasping and releasing hand movements.

StimRouter® Neuromodulation System for Chronic Peripheral Pain
With an estimated 100 million people suffering from chronic pain, contributing more than $280 billion in annual costs to the U.S. healthcare system, there’s never been a greater need for innovative pain management options.1 Specific to rehabilitation, shoulder pain is a common disability resulting from a central nervous system trauma (e.g. stroke). This pain traditionally originates at the axillary nerve, a peripheral nerve in the upper arm, and has been reported to occur in up to 85% of stroke survivors.2 The StimRouter is an implanted neuromodulation system designed to treat chronic pain of peripheral nerve origin (excluding the cranial facial region) by directly targeting pain at its point of origin, as an adjunct to other modes of therapy (e.g. medications). StimRouter helps minimize long-term healthcare costs and may provide pain relief compared to other treatments such as medications and injections which often have limited effect.3

About Bioness, Inc.
Bioness is the leading provider of innovative technologies helping people regain mobility and independence. Bioness solutions include implantable and external neuromodulation systems, robotic systems, and software-based therapy programs providing functional and therapeutic benefits for individuals affected by pain, central nervous system disorders, and orthopedic injuries. Currently, Bioness offers six medical devices within its commercial portfolio which are distributed and sold on five continents and in over 25 countries worldwide. Our technologies have been implemented in the most prestigious and well-respected institutions around the globe with approximately 90% of the top rehabilitation hospitals in the United States currently using one or more Bioness solutions.  Bioness has a singular focus on aiding large, underserved customer groups with innovative, evidence-based solutions and we will continue to develop and make commercially available new products that address the growing and changing needs of our customers. Individual results vary. Consult with a qualified physician to determine if this product is right for you. Contraindications, adverse reactions and precautions are available online at www.bioness.com.

Media Relations Contact Information
Next Step Communications
bioness@nextstepcomms.com
781.326.1741

Bioness®, BITS®, H200®, and StimRouter are trademarks of Bioness, Inc. | www.bioness.com | Rx Only for applicable products.

1 Institute of Medicine (US). Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education and Research. 2011. The National Academies.
2 Van Ouwenaller, C. et al. 1986. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 67, 23–26.
3 Deer T, et al. 2016. Neuromodulation. 19:91-100.

SOURCE Bioness, Inc.

Related Links http://www.bioness.com

via Bioness Introduces Key Updates to Rehabilitation Technology at the American Physical Therapy Association’s Combined Sections Meeting

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] How a diverse research ecosystem has generated new rehabilitation technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers – Full Text

Abstract

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a “total approach to rehabilitation”, combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970’s, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program.

Background

Disabilities cause complex problems in society often unique to each person. A physical disability can limit a person’s ability to access buildings and other facilities, drive, use public transportation, or obtain the health benefits of regular exercise. Blindness can limit a person’s ability to interpret images or navigate the environment. Disabilities in speaking or writing ability may limit the effectiveness of communication. Cognitive disabilities can alter a person’s employment opportunities. In total, a substantial fraction of the world’s population – at least 1 in 6 people – face these individualized problems that combine to create major societal impacts, including limited participation. Further, the average person in the United States can expect to live 20% of his or her life with disability, with the rate of disability increasing seven-fold by age 65 [1].

In light of these complex, pervasive issues, the field of rehabilitation engineering asks, “How can technology help?” Answering this question is also complex, as it often requires the convergence of multiple engineering and design fields (mechanical, electrical, materials, and civil engineering, architecture and industrial design, information and computer science) with clinical fields (rehabilitation medicine, orthopedic surgery, neurology, prosthetics and orthotics, physical, occupational, and speech therapy, rehabilitation psychology) and scientific fields (neuroscience, neuropsychology, biomechanics, motor control, physiology, biology). Shaping of policy, generation of new standards, and education of consumers play important roles as well.

In the US, a unique research center structure was developed to try to facilitate this convergence of fields. In the 1970’s the conceptual model of a Rehabilitation Engineering Center (REC), focusing engineering and clinical expertise on particular problems associated with disability, was first tested. The first objective of the nascent REC’s, defined at a meeting held by the Committee on Prosthetic Research and Development of the National Academy of Sciences, was “to improve the quality of life of the physically handicapped through a total approach to rehabilitation, combining medicine, engineering, and related science” [2]. This objective became a working definition of Rehabilitation Engineering [2].

The first five centers focused on topics including functional electrical stimulation, powered orthoses, neuromuscular control, the effects of pressure on tissue, prosthetics, sensory feedback, quantification of human performance, total joint replacement, and control systems for powered wheelchairs and the environment [2]. The first two RECs were funded by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1971 at Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center in Downey, CA, and Moss Rehabilitation Hospital in Philadelphia. Three more were added the following year at the Texas Institute for Rehabilitation and Research in Houston, Northwestern University/the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, and the Children’s Hospital Center in Boston, involving researchers from Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [3]. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 formally defined REC’s and mandated that 25 percent of research funding under the Act go to them [2]. The establishment of these centers was stimulated by “the polio epidemic, thalidomide tragedy and the Vietnam War, as well as the disability movement of the early 70s with its demands for independence, integration and employment opportunities” [3].

After the initial establishment of these RECs, the governmental funding agency evolved into the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR, a part of the U.S. Department of Education), and now is the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR, a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Today, as we describe below, the RERC’s study a diverse set of technologies and their use by people with a disability, including human-computer interaction, mobile computing, wearable sensors and actuators, robotics, computer gaming, motion capture, wheeled mobility, exoskeletons, lightweight materials, building and transportation technology, biomechanical modeling, and implantable technologies. For this review, we invited all RERCs that were actively reporting to NIDILRR at the onset of this review project in 2015, and had not begun in the last two years, to participate. These were centers that were funded (new or renewal) in the period 2008-2013, except the RERC Wheelchair Transportation Safety, which was funded from 2001-2011. Two of the RERCs did not respond (see Table 1). For each center, we asked it to describe the user needs it targets, summarize key advances that it had made, and identify emerging innovations and opportunities. By reviewing the scope of rehabilitation engineering research through the lens of the RERCs, our goal was to better understand the evolving nature and demands of rehabilitation technology development, as well as the influence of a multidisciplinary structure, like the RERCs, in shaping the producing of such technology. We also performed an analysis of how multidisciplinary the current RERCs actually are (see Table 3), and asked the directors to critique and suggest future directions for the RERC program.[…]

Continue —>  How a diverse research ecosystem has generated new rehabilitation technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers | Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation | Full Text

Fig. 14 Some MARS RERC projects. a) The KineAssist MX® Gait and Balance Device b) The Armeo Spring® reaching assistance device c) The March Hare virtual reality therapy game d) The Lokomat® gait assistance robot e) Robotic Error Augmentation between the therapist and patient f) lever drive wheelchair g) Ekso® exoskeleton h) Body-machine interface for device control

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Evaluation of upper extremity neurorehabilitation using technology: a European Delphi consensus study within the EU COST Action Network on Robotics for Neurorehabilitation – Full Text

Abstract

Background

The need for cost-effective neurorehabilitation is driving investment into technologies for patient assessment and treatment. Translation of these technologies into clinical practice is limited by a paucity of evidence for cost-effectiveness. Methodological issues, including lack of agreement on assessment methods, limit the value of meta-analyses of trials. In this paper we report the consensus reached on assessment protocols and outcome measures for evaluation of the upper extremity in neurorehabilitation using technology. The outcomes of this research will be part of the development of European guidelines.

Methods

A rigorous, systematic and comprehensive modified Delphi study incorporated questions and statements generation, design and piloting of consensus questionnaire and five consensus experts groups consisting of clinicians, clinical researchers, non-clinical researchers, and engineers, all with working experience of neurological assessments or technologies. For data analysis, two major groups were created: i) clinicians (e.g., practicing therapists and medical doctors) and ii) researchers (clinical and non-clinical researchers (e.g. movement scientists, technology developers and engineers).

Results

Fifteen questions or statements were identified during an initial ideas generation round, following which the questionnaire was designed and piloted. Subsequently, questions and statements went through five consensus rounds over 20 months in four European countries. Two hundred eight participants: 60 clinicians (29 %), 35 clinical researchers (17 %), 77 non-clinical researchers (37 %) and 35 engineers (17 %) contributed. At each round questions and statements were added and others removed. Consensus (≥69 %) was obtained for 22 statements on i) the perceived importance of recommendations; ii) the purpose of measurement; iii) use of a minimum set of measures; iv) minimum number, timing and duration of assessments; v) use of technology-generated assessments and the restriction of clinical assessments to validated outcome measures except in certain circumstances for research.

Conclusions

Consensus was reached by a large international multidisciplinary expert panel on measures and protocols for assessment of the upper limb in research and clinical practice. Our results will inform the development of best practice for upper extremity assessment using technologies, and the formulation of evidence-based guidelines for the evaluation of upper extremity neurorehabilitation.

Continue —> Evaluation of upper extremity neurorehabilitation using technology: a European Delphi consensus study within the EU COST Action Network on Robotics for Neurorehabilitation | Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation | Full Text

Fig. 1 Flowchart of the design and piloting of the questionnaire

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Design, development and deployment of a hand/wrist exoskeleton for home-based rehabilitation after stroke – SCRIPT project

SUMMARY

Changes in world-wide population trends have provided new demands for new technologies in areas such as care and rehabilitation. Recent developments in the the field of robotics for neurorehabilitation have shown a range of evidence regarding usefulness of these technologies as a tool to augment traditional physiotherapy. Part of the appeal for these technologies is the possibility to place a rehabilitative tool in one’s home, providing a chance for more frequent and accessible technologies for empowering individuals to be in charge of their therapy.

Objective: this manuscript introduces the Supervised Care and Rehabilitation Involving Personal Tele-robotics (SCRIPT) project. The main goal is to demonstrate design and development steps involved in a complex intervention, while examining feasibility of using an instrumented orthotic device for home-based rehabilitation after stroke.

Methods: the project uses a user-centred design methodology to develop a hand/wrist rehabilitation device for home-based therapy after stroke. The patient benefits from a dedicated user interface that allows them to receive feedback on exercise as well as communicating with the health-care professional. The health-care professional is able to use a dedicated interface to send/receive communications and remote-manage patient’s exercise routine using provided performance benchmarks. Patients were involved in a feasibility study (n=23) and were instructed to use the device and its interactive games for 180 min per week, around 30 min per day, for a period of 6 weeks, with a 2-months follow up. At the time of this study, only 12 of these patients have finished their 6 weeks trial plus 2 months follow up evaluation.

Results: with the “use feasibility” as objective, our results indicate 2 patients dropping out due to technical difficulty or lack of personal interests to continue. Our frequency of use results indicate that on average, patients used the SCRIPT1 device around 14 min of self-administered therapy a day. The group average for the system usability scale was around 69% supporting system usability.

Conclusions: based on the preliminary results, it is evident that stroke patients were able to use the system in their homes. An average of 14 min a day engagement mediated via three interactive games is promising, given the chronic stage of stroke. During the 2nd year of the project, 6 additional games with more functional relevance in their interaction have been designed to allow for a more variant context for interaction with the system, thus hoping to positively influence the exercise duration. The system usability was tested and provided supporting evidence for this parameter. Additional improvements to the system are planned based on formative feedback throughout the project and during the evaluations. These include a new orthosis that allows a more active control of the amount of assistance and resistance provided, thus aiming to provide a more challenging interaction.

Source: Robotica – Design, development and deployment of a hand/wrist exoskeleton for home-based rehabilitation after stroke – SCRIPT project – Cambridge Journals Online

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Visualisation of two-dimensional kinematic data from bimanual control of a commercial gaming system used in post-stroke rehabilitation – Full Text PDF

Abstract

Kinematic data from two stroke participants and a healthy control were collected using a novel bimanual rehabilitation system. The system employs two customized PlayStation Move Controllers and an Eye camera to track the participants’ hand movements.

In this study, the participants played a Facebook game by symmetrically moving both hands to control the computer’s mouse cursor. The collected data were recorded during one game session, and movement distribution analysis was performed to create density plots of each participant’s hand motion in the XY plane.

This type of kinematic information that can be gathered by rehabilitation systems with motion tracking capabilities has the potential to be used by therapists to monitor and guide home-based rehabilitation programs.

Full Text PDF

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: