Search

Objective . The incidence of stroke rising, leading to an increased demand for rehabilitation services. Literature has consistently shown that early and intensive rehabilitation is beneficial for stroke patients. Robot-assisted devices have been extensively studied in this context, as they have the potential to increase the frequency of therapy sessions and thereby the intensity. Robot-assisted systems can be combined with electrical stimulation (ES) to further enhance muscle activation and patient compliance. The objective of this study was to review the effectiveness of ES combined with all types of robot-assisted technology for lower extremity rehabilitation in stroke patients. Approach . A thorough search of peer-reviewed articles was conducted. The quality of the included studies was assessed using a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist. Relevant information regarding the interventions, devices, study populations, and more was extracted from the selected articles. Main results . A total of 26 articles were included in the review, with 23 of them scoring at least fair on the methodological quality. The analyzed devices could be categorized into two main groups: cycling combined with ES and robots combined with ES. Overall, all the studies demonstrated improvements in body function and structure, as well as activity level, as per the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health model. Half of the studies in this review showed superiority of training with the combination of robot and ES over robot training alone or over conventional treatment. Significance . The combination of robot-assisted technology with ES is gaining increasing interest in stroke rehabilitation. However, the studies identified in this review present challenges in terms of comparability due to variations in outcome measures and intervention protocols. Future research should focus on actively involving and engaging patients in executing movements and strive for standardization in outcome values and intervention protocols., (Creative Commons Attribution license.)

Exoskeletons are becoming the reference technology for assistance and augmentation of human motor functions in a wide range of application domains. Unfortunately, the exponential growth of this sector has not been accompanied by a rigorous risk assessment (RA) process, which is necessary to identify the major aspects concerning the safety and impact of this new technology on humans. This situation may seriously hamper the market uptake of new products. This paper presents the results of a survey that was circulated to understand how hazards are considered by exoskeleton users, from research and industry perspectives. Our analysis aimed to identify the perceived occurrence and the impact of a sample of generic hazards, as well as to collect suggestions and general opinions from the respondents that can serve as a reference for more targeted RA. Our results identified a list of relevant hazards for exoskeletons. Among them, misalignments and unintended device motion were perceived as key aspects for exoskeletons' safety. This survey aims to represent a first attempt in recording overall feedback from the community and contribute to future RAs and the identification of better mitigation strategies in the field., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: To explore the direct influence of a soft-robotic glove on movement duration and movement execution in elderly people with decreased hand function during a reach-and-grasp task., Design: Cross-sectional study., Patients: Eight subjects, aged 55+ years, with decreased hand function., Methods: The direct effect of the glove was explored using kinematic analysis during a reach-and-grasp task with a light (100 g) and heavy (1,000/2,500 g) cylindrical object, performed with and without the soft-robotic glove., Results: There was no difference in total movement time between performance with and without the glove. With the glove, the relative time needed to transport the heavy object was shorter, while the relative time needed to grasp the heavy object was longer. In addition, transporting light objects involved a lower peak velocity and larger elbow extension, and grasping the object involved a larger hand opening compared with without glove., Conclusion: As expected, no positive influence of the soft-robotic glove was found on total movement duration in elderly subjects. The influence of the glove on movement execution varied with movement phase. The positive and negative effects found may be due to a perceived confidence while carrying heavy objects with the glove, or compensation for loss of sensation, respectively. This information can be used to improve the glove design.

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.