Comparative Assessment of Robotic versus Classical Physical Therapy Using Muscle Strength and Ranges of Motion Testing in Neurological Diseases.
MRC scale
Parkinson’s
dynamometry
goniometry
motor neuron disease
physical therapy
robotic rehabilitation
stroke
Journal
Journal of personalized medicine
ISSN: 2075-4426
Titre abrégé: J Pers Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101602269
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Sep 2021
25 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
30
07
2021
revised:
20
09
2021
accepted:
22
09
2021
entrez:
23
10
2021
pubmed:
24
10
2021
medline:
24
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of robotic systems in physical rehabilitation protocols has become increasingly attractive and has been given more focus in the last decade as a result of the high prevalence of motor deficits in the population, which is linked to an overburdened healthcare system. In accordance with current trends, three robotic devices have been designed, called ParReEx Elbow, ParReEx Wrist, and ASPIRE, which were designed to improve upper-limb medical recovery (shoulder, elbow, forearm, and wrist). The three automated systems were tested in a hospital setting with 23 patients (12 men and 11 women) suffering from motor deficits caused by various neurological diseases such as stroke, Parkinson's disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The patients were divided into three groups based on their pathology (vascular, extrapyramidal, and neuromuscular). Objective clinical measures, such as the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale, goniometry, and dynamometry, were used to compare pre- and post-rehabilitation assessments for both robotic-aided and manual physical rehabilitation therapy. The results of these tests showed that, with the exception of a few minor differences in muscular strength recovery, the robotic-assisted rehabilitation methods performed equally as well as the manual techniques, though only minor improvements were validated during short-term rehabilitation. The greatest achievements were obtained in the goniometric analysis where some rehabilitation amplitudes increased by over 40% in the vascular group, but the same analysis returned regressions in the neuromuscular group. The MRC scale analysis returned no significant differences, with most regressions occurring in the neuromuscular group. The dynamometric analysis mostly returned improvements, but the highest value evolution was 19.07%, which also in the vascular group. While the results were encouraging, more research is needed with a larger sample size and a longer study period in order to provide more information regarding the efficacy of both rehabilitation methods in neurological illnesses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34683094
pii: jpm11100953
doi: 10.3390/jpm11100953
pmc: PMC8541455
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : European Regional Development Fund
ID : ID P_37_215, MySMIS code 103415
Organisme : European Social Fund
ID : POCU/380/6/13/123927
Références
Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2021 Jun;51:102936
pubmed: 33878619
Ann Rehabil Med. 2014 Aug;38(4):450-7
pubmed: 25229023
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006 Sep;20(3):380-9
pubmed: 16885424
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 10;(9):CD002817
pubmed: 24018704
Neurol Sci. 2021 Apr 7;:
pubmed: 33826010
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Jun 5;15(1):46
pubmed: 29866106
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 22;18(6):
pubmed: 33810042
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jan 19;17(2):
pubmed: 31963917
Neurol Sci. 2021 Jul 11;:
pubmed: 34247295
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;89(8):828-835
pubmed: 29321141
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021 Mar;35(3):256-266
pubmed: 33522417
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2019;147:45-74
pubmed: 31607362
Neuroimage Clin. 2019;22:101708
pubmed: 30763902
NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;37(1):53-68
pubmed: 26409693
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020 Sep-Oct;34(5 Suppl. 3):165-174. Technology in Medicine
pubmed: 33386046
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021 Apr;35(4):334-345
pubmed: 33655789
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Sep 13;10:442
pubmed: 27679565
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 May 6;18(1):76
pubmed: 33957937
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019 Apr;33(4):235-244
pubmed: 30900528
Clin Rehabil. 2005 Aug;19(5):544-51
pubmed: 16119411
Front Neurol. 2021 Jun 02;12:622014
pubmed: 34149587
Lancet Neurol. 2020 Apr;19(4):348-360
pubmed: 32004440
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Sep 09;17(18):
pubmed: 32916890
Degener Neurol Neuromuscul Dis. 2018 Jul 16;8:45-54
pubmed: 30890895
Neurol Res Int. 2021 Jan 29;2021:6690715
pubmed: 33564477
J Healthc Eng. 2020 Oct 27;2020:8810867
pubmed: 33194159
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Feb;88(2):142-9
pubmed: 17270510
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 Feb;29(2):112-22
pubmed: 24961994
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Jan 6;18(1):4
pubmed: 33407580
Am J Occup Ther. 2021 Jan-Feb;75(1):7501205020p1-7501205020p11
pubmed: 33399050
Semin Neurol. 2021 Apr;41(2):167-176
pubmed: 33663001