The Role of Modern Robot-aided Rehabilitation Technologies for the Improvement of the Upper Extremity Functions
https://doi.org/10.31550/1727-2378-2022-21-8-39-43
Abstract
Objective of the Review: To discuss the efficiency of using various robot-aided rehabilitation devices in order to improve the upper extremity functions in patients with cerebral pathologies.
Key Points. The medical devices market is abundant in various robot-aided devices for patient rehabilitation. Currently, the issue of combining various rehabilitation techniques is still open; scientific researches are ongoing which aim at analysing the problem of gain of motion.
Conclusion. The variability of technical solutions and results of the use of rehabilitation techniques requires further deep analysis of factors determining the efficiency of their use, and development of personified approaches to the management.
About the Authors
E. A. Biryukov
Ivanovo State Medical Academy (a Federal Government-funded Educational Institution of Higher Education), Russian Federation Ministry of Health
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
8 Sheremetevsky Prospect, Ivanovo, 153012
I. P. Yastrebtseva
Ivanovo State Medical Academy (a Federal Government-funded Educational Institution of Higher Education), Russian Federation Ministry of Health
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
8 Sheremetevsky Prospect, Ivanovo, 153012
References
1. Khasanova D.R., Zhitkova Y.V., Tabiev I.I. Integrated rehabilitation for patients with post-stroke syndrome. Medical advice. 2016; (8): 18–23. (in Russian)
2. Mishchenko V.M., Zabrodina L.P. Neuroplasticity and post-stroke cognitive impairment (therapeutic possibilities). 2020; 16(1): 42–49. (in Russian). DOI: 10.22141/2224-0713.16.1.2020.197330
3. Levin O.S., Bogolepova A.N. Cognitive rehabilitation of patients with neurodegenerative diseases. Zh. Nevrol. Psikhiatr. Im. S.S. Korsakova. 2020. 120(5): 110–115. (in Russian). DOI: 10.17116/jnevro2020120051110
4. Mikhailovskaya T.V., Mishina I.E., Tochyonov M.Yu. Connection of arterial hypertension parameters and vital activity limitation in acute period of ischemic stroke. Bulletin of the Ivanovo Medical Academy. 2019; 24(3): 27–31. (in Russian)
5. Melnikova E.A., Razumov A.N. Influence of neuropsychological features on the recovery of patients with stroke. Doctor.Ru. 2017; (11): 9–12. (in Russian)
6. Sevcenko K., Lindgren I. The effects of virtual reality training in stroke and Parkinson’s disease rehabilitation: a systematic review and a perspective on usability. Eur. Rev. Aging Phys. Act. 2022; 19(1): 4. DOI: 10.1186/s11556-022-00283-3
7. Novikova L.B., Akopian A.P., Akhmetova A.R. The role of rehabilitation potential in the restorative period of the stroke. Consilium Medicum. 2017; 19(2-1): 14–16. (in Russian)
8. Damulin I.V., Ekusheva E.V. A clinical value of neuroplasticity in ischemic stroke. Annals of clinical and experimental neurology. 2016; 10(1): 57–63. (in Russian)
9. Bernstein N.A. Essays on the physiology of movements and the physiology of activity. Moscow; 1966. 349 p. (in Russian)
10. Daminov V.D. Robotic mechanotherapy in neurorehabilitation. Bulletin of the Almaty State Institute for the Improvement of Doctors. 2013; (S3): 83–88. (in Russian)
11. Grokhovsky S.S., Kubryak O.V. Towards the question of "dose" motor rehabilitation after stroke: review. Physiotherapy, balneology and rehabilitation. 2018; 17(2): 66–71. (in Russian). DOI: 10.18821/1681-3456-2018-17-2-66-71
12. Koroleva E.S., Alifirova V.M., Latypova A.V. et al. Principles and global experience of applying robotic rehabilitation technologies in patients after stroke. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2019; 18(2): 223–233. (in Russian). DOI: 10.20538/1682-0363-2019-2-223-233
13. Ravaeva M.Yu., Moiseenko V.A. Lack of coordination of movements. The role of biofeedback training in rehabilitation. Issues of sustainable development of society. 2020; (2): 601–608. (in Russian) DOI: 10.34755/IROK.2020.86.64.089
14. Özen Ö., Buetler K.A., Marchal-Crespo L. Towards functional robotic training: motor learning of dynamic tasks is enhanced by haptic rendering but hampered by arm weight support. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2022; 19(1): 19. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-022-00993-w
15. Frisoli A., Barsotti M., Sotgiu E. et al. A randomized clinical control study on the efficacy of three-dimensional upper limb robotic exoskeleton training in chronic stroke. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2022; 19(1): 14. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-022-00991-y
16. Kim D.H., Lee KD., Bulea T.C. et al. Increasing motor cortex activation during grasping via novel robotic mirror hand therapy: a pilot fNIRS study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2022; 19(1): 8. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-022-00988-7
17. Chukanova E.I., Chukanova A.S. Chronic cerebral ischemia, neuroplasticity, possibilities of therapy. 2017; (9): 102–107. (in Russian). DOI: 10.14412/2074-2711-2017-2-102-107
18. Belova A.N., Borzikov V.V., Kuznetsov A.N., Rukina N.N. Robotic devices in neurorehabilitation: review. Herald of Restorative Medicine. 2018; (2): 94–107. (in Russian)
19. Ekusheva E.V., Komazov A.A. The use of the "Anika" rehabilitation glove in stroke: the potentials for the improvement of functional recovery. Farmateka. 2019; (13): 30–33. (in Russian). DOI: 10.18565/pharmateca.2019.13.30-33
20. Büsching I., Sehle A., Stürner J. et al. Using an upper extremity exoskeleton for semi-autonomous exercise during inpatient neurological rehabilitation — a pilot study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2018; 15(1): 72. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-018-0415-6
21. Bos R.A., Haarman C.J., Stortelder T. et al. A structured overview of trends and technologies used in dynamic hand orthoses. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2016; 13(1): 62. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-016-0168-z
22. Cadilhac D.A., Andrew N.E., Kilkenny M.F. et al. Improving quality and outcomes of stroke care in hospitals: Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Stroke123 implementation study. Int. J. Stroke. 2018; 13(1): 96–106. DOI: 10.1177/1747493017730741
23. Gassert R., Dietz V. Rehabilitation robots for the treatment of sensorimotor deficits: a neurophysiological perspective. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2018; 15(1): 46. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-018-0383-x
24. Baniqued P.D.E., Stanyer E.C., Awais M. et al. Brain-computer interface robotics for hand rehabilitation after stroke: a systematic review. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2021; 18(1): 15. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-021-00820-8
25. Germanotta M., Gower V., Papadopoulou D. et al. Reliability, validity and discriminant ability of a robotic device for finger training in patients with subacute stroke. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2020; 17(1): 1. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-019-0634-5
26. Brihmat N., Loubinoux I., Castel-Lacanal E. et al. Kinematic parameters obtainedwith the ArmeoSpring for upper-limb assessment after stroke: a reliability and learningeffect study for guiding parameter use. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2020; 17(1): 130. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-020-00759-2
27. Varalta V., Picelli A., Fonte C. et al. Effects of contralesional robotassisted hand training in patients with unilateral spatial neglect following stroke: a case series study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2014; 11: 160. DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-160
28. Piradov M.A., Chernikova L.A., Suponeva N.A. et al. Prospects of robotic technologies for upper limb rehabilitation. Quality. Innovation. Education. 2016; (S2): 122–130. (in Russian)
Review
For citations:
Biryukov E.A., Yastrebtseva I.P. The Role of Modern Robot-aided Rehabilitation Technologies for the Improvement of the Upper Extremity Functions. Title. 2022;21(8):39-43. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31550/1727-2378-2022-21-8-39-43
Views:
14
Email this article 