medigraphic.com
ISSN 1405-8790 (Print)

2015, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Med Fis Rehab 2015; 27 (2)

Introduction to robotic rehabilitation for the treatment of brain stroke disease: revision

Loeza MP

Language: Spanish
References: 37
Page: 44-48
PDF size: 164.00 Kb.


ABSTRACT

This is a review aimed at identifying stroke patients who are candidates for treatment with robotic rehabilitation and the benefits from it. A search was made for pilot studies, quasi-experimental, clinical guidelines and systematic reviews related to robotic rehabilitation for treatment of brain stroke disease in databases PubMed, Science Direct, Medigraphic and Google Scholar, where we could find a clasification of treatments, patient selection and benefits. The patient must have a precise set of characteristics to carry out a safe treatment and get the best results. Treatment should include parameters, tasks, objectives and measurements of achievement through clinical and assessment scales, as well as a combination of techniques. Conclusion: The robotic treatment will never replace conventional physical therapy and the patient should be properly selected to be benefited.


REFERENCES

  1. Chiquete E, Ruiz-Sandoval J, Murillo-Bonilla L, Arauz A, Villareal-Careaga J, Barinagarrementería F et al. Mortalidad por enfermedad vascular cerebral en México, 2000-2008: una exhortación a la acción. Rev Mex Neuroci. 2011; 12 (5): 235-241.

  2. CENETEC. Prevención secundaria, diagnóstico, tratamiento y vigilancia de la enfermedad vascular cerebral isquémica. México: Secretaría de Salud; 2008. Disponible en: www.cenetec.salud.gob.mx

  3. Geroin C, Mazzoleni S, Smania N, Gandolfi M, Bonaiuti D, Gasperini G et al. Systematic review of outcome measures of walking training using electromechanical and robotic devices in patients with stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2013; 45: 987-996.

  4. Duncan PW, Zorowitz R, Bates B, Choi JY, Glasberg JJ, Graham GD et al. Management of adult stroke rehabilitation care: a clinical practice guideline. Stroke. 2005; 36: e100-e143.

  5. CENETEC. Guía de referencia rápida: rehabilitación de adultos con enfermedad vascular cerebral. Catálogo Maestro de Guías Clínicas. México: DIF-331-09.

  6. Daviet JC, Dudognon PJ, Salle JY, Munoz M, Lissandre JP, Rebeyrotte I et al. Rééducation des accidents vasculaires cérébraux. Bilanet prise en charge. Encycl Méd Chir, Kinésithérapie-Médecine physique-Réadaptation. 2002; 26-455-A-10,24 p.

  7. Daviet JC, Dudognon PJ, Salle JY, Munoz M, Lissandre JP, Rebeyrotte I et al. Technique de rééducation neuromusculair e apliquées à l´accidenté vasculaire cérébral adulte. Encycl Méd Chir, Kinésithérapie - Médecine physique-Réadaptation, 2002;26-455-B-10,8 p.

  8. Zúniga M, Carrillo-Jiménez G, Fos P, Gandek B, Medina-Moreno M. Evaluación del estado de salud con la Encuesta SF-36: resultados preliminares en México. Salud Pública Mex. 1999; 41 (2): 110-118.

  9. Gebruers N, Vanroy C, Truijen S, Engelborghs S, De Deyn PP. Monitoring of physical activity after stroke: a systematic review of accelerometry-based measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 91: 288-297.

  10. Ng SS, Tsang WW, Cheung TH, Chung JS, To FP, Yu PC. Walkway length, but not turning direction, determines the six-minute walk test distance in individuals with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: 806-811.

  11. Krewer C, Müller F, Husemann B, Heller S, Quintern J, Koening E. The influence of different Lokomat walking conditions on the energy expenditure of hemiparetic patients and healthy subjects. Gait & Posture. 2007; 26: 372-377. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.10.003.

  12. Cooper RA, Dicianno BE, Brewer B, LoPresti E, Ding D, Simpson R et al. A perspective on intelligent devices and environments in medical rehabilitation. Med Eng Physics. 2008; 30: 1387-1398.

  13. Zhang M, Davies TC, Xie S. Effectiveness of robot-assisted therapy on ankle rehabilitation-a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013; 10: 30.

  14. Krebs HI, Volpe BT. Rehabilitation robotics. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Neurological Rehabilitation. 2013. Vol. 110 (3rd series). Barnes MP, Good DC, editors. Available in: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978044452901500023X

  15. Rodríguez-Prunotto L, Cano-de la Cuerda R, Cuesta-Gómez A, Alguacil-Diego IM, Molina-Rueda F. Terapia robótica para la rehabilitación del miembro superior en patología neurológica. Rehabilitación (Madr). 2014; 48 (2): 104-128.

  16. Díaz I, Gil JJ, Sánchez E. Lower-limb robotic rehabilitation: literature review and challenges. J Robot. 2011. Article ID 759764, 11 pages. doi: 10.1155/2011/759764.

  17. Chang WH, Kim YH. Robot-assisted therapy in stroke rehabilitation. J Stroke. 2013; 15 (3): 174-181. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.5853/jos.2013.15.3.174

  18. Mazzoleni S, Turchetti G, Palla I, Posteraro F, Dario P. Acceptability of robotic technology in neuro-rehabilitation: preliminary results on chronic stroke patients. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2014; 116 (2): 116-122. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2013.12.017.

  19. Marchal-Crespo L, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Review of control strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009; 6: 20. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-6-20.

  20. Mayr A, Kofler M, Quirbach E, Matzak H, Fröhlich K, Saltuari L. Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study of gait rehabilitation in stroke patients using the Lokomat gait orthosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007; 21: 307-314.

  21. Eng JJ, Dawson AS, Chu KS. Submaximal exercise in persons with stroke: test-retest reliability and concurrent validity with maximal oxygen consumption. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85: 113-118.

  22. Kluding P, Gajewski B. Lower-extremity strength differences predict activity limitations in people with chronic stroke. PhysTher. 2009; 89: 73-81.

  23. Niessen MH, Veeger DH, Meskers CG, Koppe PA, Konijnenbelt MH, Janssen TW. Relationship among shoulder proprioception, kinematics, and pain after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009; 90: 1557-1564.

  24. Teasell RW, Foley NC, Bhogal SK, Speechley MR. An evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2003; 10 (1): 29-58.

  25. Masiero S, Celia A, Rosati G, Armani M. Robotic-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limb after acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88: 142-149.

  26. Duncan P, Studenski S, Richards L, Gollub S, Lai SM, Reker D et al. Randomized clinical trial of therapeutic exercise in subacute stroke. Stroke. 2003; 34: 2173-2180.

  27. Dickstein R. Rehabilitation of gait speed after stroke: a critical review of intervention approaches. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008; 22: 649.

  28. Hill DC, Ethans KD, MacLeod DA, Harrison ER, Matheson JE. Exercise stress testing in subacute stroke patients using a combined upper- and lower-limb ergometer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86: 1860-1866.

  29. Ivey FM, Hafer-Macko CE, Macko RF. Exercise training for cardiometabolic adaptation after stroke. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2008; 28: 2-11.

  30. Norouzi-Gheidari N, Archambault PS, Fung J. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on stroke rehabilitation in upper limbs: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012; 49 (4): 479-496.

  31. Volpe B, Krebs H, Hogan N. Is robot-aided sensorimotor training in stroke rehabilitation a realistic option? Current Opinion in Neurology. 2001; 14: 745-752.

  32. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Krebs HI. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008; 22: 111-121. doi: 10.1177/1545968307305457.

  33. Prange GB, Jannink MJ, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Hermens HJ, Ijzerman MJ. Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006; 43 (2): 171-184. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2005.04.0076.

  34. Pulman J, Buckley E. Assessing the efficacy of different upper limb hemiparesis interventions on improving health-related quality of life in stroke patients: a systematic review. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2013; 20 (2): 171-188.

  35. Weineck J. Entrenamiento total. Barcelona: Ed. Paidotribo; 2005.

  36. Gonzalo-Domínguez M. Evaluabilidad de los programas del robot Amadeo en la rehabilitación de la mano del hemipléjico. TOG (A Coruña) [revista en Internet]. 2014; 11 (20): 20. Disponible en: http://www.revistatog.com/num20/pdfs/original9.pdf

  37. Rodríguez-Claudio I. Entrenamiento robótico como medio de rehabilitación para la marcha. Evid Med Invest Salud. 2012; 5 (2): 46-54.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com