Posts Tagged Robotic exoskeletons

[ARTICLE] Mobile Mechatronic/Robotic Orthotic Devices to Assist–Rehabilitate Neuromotor Impairments in the Upper Limb: A Systematic and Synthetic Review – Full Text

This paper overviews the state-of-the-art in upper limb robot-supported approaches, focusing on advancements in the related mechatronic devices for the patients’ rehabilitation and/or assistance. Dedicated to the technical, comprehensively methodological and global effectiveness and improvement in this inter-disciplinary field of research, it includes information beyond the therapy administrated in clinical settings-but with no diminished safety requirements. Our systematic review, based on PRISMA guidelines, searched articles published between January 2001 and November 2017 from the following databases: Cochrane, Medline/PubMed, PMC, Elsevier, PEDro, and ISI Web of Knowledge/Science. Then we have applied a new innovative PEDro-inspired technique to classify the relevant articles. The article focuses on the main indications, current technologies, categories of intervention and outcome assessment modalities. It includes also, in tabular form, the main characteristics of the most relevant mobile (wearable and/or portable) mechatronic/robotic orthoses/exoskeletons prototype devices used to assist-rehabilitate neuromotor impairments in the upper limb.

1. Introduction–General Perspective and Main Rationales

What differentiates human beings from animals is the superior psycho-cognitive activity, including the coordinated/complex, workable, actions of its highly correlated physical effecter: the upper limb, and especially the hand—as basis of our creative and modeler/draftsman kind interactions with the environment. This profound and subtle reality has been conceptualized during history by great thinkers, such as Aristotel (2005), Descartes, Newton and Kant (Lundborg, 2014).

Accordingly, finding solutions that address rehabilitation and/or functional assistance of neuromotor impairments at this level would have a remarkable positive impact: for the beneficiaries’ quality of life (Frisoli et al., 2016) and from a socio-economical perspective, as well. The latter corresponds to the temporary regain/re-insertion of the productive resources lost because of the disabilities in their upper limbs. Moreover, it is to be considered, within the general context/trend of offering a reliable alternative for prolonged hospitalizations, the need for top of the range assistive/rehabilitative orthotic mobile devices. These should be capable to provide safe and of continuity rehabilitation (Loureiro et al., 2011) and/or functional assistance for the above mentioned topography, too, of neuromotor deficits including in the patient’s daily life context. Such endeavors are often necessary on long term, mainly imposed, in the morbidity domain we approach, by the required duration of neuroplasticity to install/act (Muresanu et al., 2012Basteris et al., 2014Xiao et al., 2014Proietti et al., 2016Mazzoleni et al., 2017), to be (re)settled in adequate engrams for the function(s) aimed at restoring, and/or of peripheral nerves’ re-growth (Guyton and Hall, 2006).

The necessity for such devices that can operate without fatigue in both clinical settings, at home and in the community is growing high (Stewart et al., 2017). This is despite of the fact that people with upper limb pathology—who do not necessarily suffer from functional issues in the lower limbs—can commonly reach clinical units (in order to receive ambulatory rehabilitative specific procedures). Another aspect is that, at the moment, there is already a “shortage” of professionals handy to deliver domiciliary physiotherapy/rehabilitation and nursing, for persons with physical impairments. This is a worrying situation, especially as it is foreseen to become more and more frequent in the years to come (Maciejasz et al., 2014).

An important related development direction consists of consolidating their wearable profile. This practically entails—subsumed to a rightful beneficiary’s desire: “several hours” per day of working performance (Allotta et al., 2015)—availability for autonomous powered duty (as for easily/rapidly rechargeable facilities, too) and respectively comfortable bearing by the consumer in the daily life (Giberti et al., 2014), limitation of encumbrances, lightweight (Rocon et al., 2007Martinez et al., 2008Song et al., 20132014Chen et al., 2014Giberti et al., 2014Andrikopoulos et al., 2015Allotta et al., 2015Polygerinos et al., 2015Guo et al., 2016Nycz et al., 2016Alavi et al., 2017Stewart et al., 2017) and modularity (Lo et al., 2010Pearce et al., 2012Noveanu et al., 2013Xiao et al., 2014Nycz et al., 2016) and/or, in some cases, “reconfigurability” (Maciejasz et al., 2014).

Considering all the necessary technical assets for such advanced devices to be mobile (Kiguchi et al., 2008aLee, 2014Nycz et al., 2016), thereby available for individual more extended use, an additional, non-technical, but derivative and decisive condition is, as well, mandatory: their cost-effectiveness (Noveanu et al., 2013).

We consider it only appropriate to iterate here a summarized idea of a previous work of ours (Onose et al., 2016) that currently there is still no such thing as an optimal, fully functional assistive-rehabilitative device (in the common sense of the term). This regards mainly: don/doff issues (Nimawat and Jailiya, 2015)–for severely disabled potential beneficiaries–, psychological acceptance (of self image/esteem kind, referring to the ensemble look of the consumer: enough miniaturization and cosmetics– thus either reaching a satisfactory clothes-like aspect or even becoming as thin as to evolve to underwear dimensions), extended power autonomy, easy and fast set-up-for professionals (Dijkers et al., 1991). Another important feature for the customers/their kin is the appropriateness for long time duty in various real life situations. One should consider also the consistent related safety, producing very low/practically imperceptible noise when in service and truly affordable/cost effective.

 

Continue —->Frontiers | Mobile Mechatronic/Robotic Orthotic Devices to Assist–Rehabilitate Neuromotor Impairments in the Upper Limb: A Systematic and Synthetic Review | Neuroscience

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Applications of Brain–Machine Interface Systems in Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation – Full Text HTML

Abstract

Stroke is a leading cause of disability, significantly impacting the quality of life (QOL) in survivors, and rehabilitation remains the mainstay of treatment in these patients.

Recent engineering and technological advances such as brain–machine interfaces (BMI) and robotic rehabilitative devices are promising to enhance stroke neurorehabilitation, to accelerate functional recovery and improve QOL.

This review discusses the recent applications of BMI and robotic-assisted rehabilitation in stroke patients. We present the framework for integrated BMI and robotic-assisted therapies, and discuss their potential therapeutic, assistive and diagnostic functions in stroke rehabilitation.

Finally, we conclude with an outlook on the potential challenges and future directions of these neurotechnologies, and their impact on clinical rehabilitation.

Full Text HTML–> Applications of Brain–Machine Interface Systems in Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation – Springer.

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: