Impact of smart force feedback rehabilitation robot training on upper limb motor function in the subacute stage of stroke

Xu, Quan; Li, Chong; Pan, Yu; Wei, Li; Jia, Tianyu; Li, Zhibin; Ma, Di; Pang, Xue; Ji, Linhong

doi:10.3233/nre-203130

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The remaining studies combined the treatment of two or more different districts: 20 ( Ambrosini et al, 2021 ; Carpinella et al, 2020 ; Daly et al, 2005, 2019 ; Dehem et al, 2019 ; Doost et al, 2021 ; Gandolfi et al, 2019 ; K. W. Lee et al, 2016 ; Lee KW et al, 2017 ; S. H. Lee et al, 2020 ; Lo et al, 2010 ; Lum et al, 2002 ; Masiero et al, 2007, 2014 ; McCabe et al, 2015 ; Rabadi et al, 2008 ; Rosenthal et al, 2019 ; Tomić et al, 2017 ; Volpe et al, 2000 ; Xu et al, 2020 ) rehabilitated shoulder and elbow; robotic rehabilitation for forearm and wrist was considered in eleven studies ( Hesse et al, 2005, 2014 ; Housman et al, 2009 ; Hsieh et al, 2011, 2016 ; Hsu et al, 2019 ; C. S. Hung, Hsieh, Wu, Chen, et al, 2019 ; C. S. Hung, Hsieh, Wu, Lin, et al, 2019 ; C. Shan Hung et al, 2019 ; Liao et al, 2012 ; Wu et al, 2012 ); wrist and hand was treated in two studies ( Kutner et al, 2010 ; Wolf et al, 2015 ); Qian et al (2019) used a robotic device for elbow, wrist and hand rehabilitation, while five studies ( Daunoraviciene et al, 2018 ; Gueye et al, 2021 ; Jiang et al, 2021 ; Taveggia G et al, 2016 ; Zengin-Metli et al, 2018 ) underwent RT for shoulder, elbow and hand.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of robotic upper limb treatment after stroke on cognitive patterns: A systematic review

Bressi

Cricenti

Campagnola

et al. 2022

NRE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Robotic therapy (RT) has been internationally recognized for the motor rehabilitation of the upper limb. Although it seems that RT can stimulate and promote neuroplasticity, the effectiveness of robotics in restoring cognitive deficits has been considered only in a few recent studies. OBJECTIVE: To verify whether, in the current state of the literature, cognitive measures are used as inclusion or exclusion criteria and/or outcomes measures in robotic upper limb rehabilitation in stroke patients. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies eligible were identified through PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science from inception to March 2021. RESULTS: Eighty-one studies were considered in this systematic review. Seventy-three studies have at least a cognitive inclusion or exclusion criteria, while only seven studies assessed cognitive outcomes. CONCLUSION: Despite the high presence of cognitive instruments used for inclusion/exclusion criteria their heterogeneity did not allow the identification of a guideline for the evaluation of patients in different stroke stages. Therefore, although the heterogeneity and the low percentage of studies that included cognitive outcomes, seemed that the latter were positively influenced by RT in post-stroke rehabilitation. Future larger RCTs are needed to outline which cognitive scales are most suitable and their cut-off, as well as what cognitive outcome measures to use in the various stages of post-stroke rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of robotic upper limb treatment after stroke on cognitive patterns: A systematic review

Bressi

Cricenti

Campagnola

et al. 2022

NRE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All studies included both male and female. Four of the studies investigated chronic stroke patients, 25,30,37,38 11 studies subacute stroke patients 12,[26][27][28][33][34][35][36][64][65][66] and three studies investigated a combination of the two. 13,29,67 Intervention.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…InMotion2 ® was used in seven trials, 13,[25][26][27][28][29][30]38 Amadeo ® was used in four trials, 12,28,34,64 ReoGo ® in three, 35,37,65 while ArmAssist ® , 66 Fourier ® , 36 H-Man ®67 and Armeo Spring ®33 was used in one trial each. 10 of the trials utilized a robot with 2 degrees of freedom, 13,[25][26][27]29,30,36,38,66,67 six used a robotic device with five degrees of freedom, 28,34,35,37,64,65 while two studies investigated a robot with seven degrees of freedom. 12,33 The intervention dosage (duration x frequency) used in the trials varied considerably.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of robot-assisted arm exercise on arm and hand function in stroke survivors - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Johansen

Sorensen

Kolskår

et al. 2023

Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineerin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To examine the treatment effect of commercially available robotic-assisted devices, compared to traditional occupational- and physiotherapy on arm and hand function in persons with stroke. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to January 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCT’s) involving persons with stroke of all ages and robot-assisted exercise as method for arm and hand function, compared to traditional therapy methods were included. Three authors performed the selection independently. The quality of evidence across studies was assessed using GRADE. Results: Eighteen RCT’s were included in the study. A random effects meta-analysis showed a statistically significantly higher treatment effect in the robotic-assisted exercise group (p=<0.0001) compared to the traditional treatment group, with a total effect size of 0.44 (CI = 0.22–0.65). Heterogeneity was high, measured with I2 of 65%). Subgroup analyses showed no significant effects of the type of robotic device, treatment frequency or duration of intervention. Discussion and conclusion: Even though the analysis showed significant improvement in arm and hand function in favor of the robotic-assisted exercise group, the results in this systematic review should be interpreted with caution. This is due to high heterogeneity among the studies included and the presence of possible publication bias. Results of this study highlight the need for larger and more methodological robust RCT’s, with a focus on reporting training intensity during robotic exercise.

show abstract

“…Strokes are one of the most common causes of disability, and stroke survivors commonly suffer impaired mobility. It has been clinically verified that long-term, repetitive, and effective rehabilitation training can help patients with upper limb dysfunction promote the recovery of motor function (Xu et al, 2020;Kwakkel et al, 1999). The existing upper limb exoskeleton rehabilitation robots (ULERRs) mostly use rigid links with external power sources, making them bulky and heavy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design of a soft bionic elbow exoskeleton based on shape memory alloy spring actuators

Xie

Meng

et al. 2023

Mech. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Shape memory alloy (SMA) is a kind of active deformation material with a self-sensing and driving ability. It is very similar to the performance of human muscles, and through temperature changes to produce phase changes to output force and displacement, it has the ability to restore the initial shape and size. The combination of SMA and wearable robotic technology has the advantages of being light weight, energy-saving, and having great human–exoskeleton interaction. However, the existing flexible exoskeletons driven by SMA are only designed with bionic primary muscles, ignoring the role of antagonistic muscles. This study presents a novel soft bionic elbow exoskeleton based on SMA spring actuators (Sobee-SMA). The exoskeleton adopts a bionic design, combining active deformation material SMA and a high-elastic-material rubber band to simulate the contraction and relaxation of elbow skeletal muscles. Through a pulse width modulation (PWM) experiment, the driving voltage is selected as 12 V, the PWM duty cycle is 90 % during heating, and the PWM duty cycle is 18 % during heat preservation. In a relaxed state of healthy subjects, the range of motion of the elbow is about 0–80∘, and the maximum temperature is about 60–70 ∘C. During the circular movement of the elbow, the maximum temperature can be maintained within the SMA operating temperature without a high temperature. In conclusion, the exoskeleton provides elbow-assisted motion and ensures the safety of the heating process.

show abstract

Impact of smart force feedback rehabilitation robot training on upper limb motor function in the subacute stage of stroke

Cited by 14 publications

References 21 publications

Effects of robotic upper limb treatment after stroke on cognitive patterns: A systematic review

Effects of robotic upper limb treatment after stroke on cognitive patterns: A systematic review

Effectiveness of robot-assisted arm exercise on arm and hand function in stroke survivors - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Design of a soft bionic elbow exoskeleton based on shape memory alloy spring actuators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About