J Korean Med Assoc.  2013 Jan;56(1):23-29. 10.5124/jkma.2013.56.1.23.

Robotics in rehabilitation for patients with brain disease

• Chun MH
• Yi JH

• KMID: 2192897
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2013.56.1.23

Abstract

During recent years, robot-assisted rehabilitation therapies for patients with brain disease have rapidly advanced. However, due to their high cost and lack of evidence of clinical therapeutic effects, applying robot-assisted rehabilitation therapies has been difficult. This study was conducted to help patients understand more about robot-assisted rehabilitation therapies and to suggest various clinical applications. Existing robot therapies are expensive due to the cost needed for initial development. In addition, only clinical trial results of small sample sizes have been published. Therefore, attempts to improve technologies should be encouraged and ongoing research about their therapeutic effects should be performed. These attempts would help to overcome the disadvantages of previous conventional rehabilitation techniques and to optimize rehabilitation therapies. Technology development, active clinical research, and investments should be encouraged for robot-assisted rehabilitation for the future.

Keyword

Robotics; Rehabilitation; Robotic-assisted therapy

MeSH Terms

Brain
Brain Diseases
Humans
Investments
Robotics
Sample Size

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 (A) Person with stroke engaged in robotic therapy using Armeo (B) Person with stroke engaged in robotic therapy using Lokomat (C) Lokomat (Hokoma AG, Zurich, Switzerland)

Reference

1. Jee KY, Kim YJ. The trends and visions of medical robotics market in the IT-BT convergence. Electron Telecommun Trends. 2008; 23:119–129.

2. Lo HS, Xie SQ. Exoskeleton robots for upper-limb rehabilitation: state of the art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys. 2012; 34:261–268.

3. Gijbels D, Lamers I, Kerkhofs L, Alders G, Knippenberg E, Feys P. The Armeo Spring as training tool to improve upper limb functionality in multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011; 8:5.

4. Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J, Frontera WR, Hogan N. Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84:477–482.

5. Stein J. Robotics in rehabilitation: technology as destiny. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 91:11 Suppl 3. S199–S203.

6. Mehrholz J, Hadrich A, Platz T, Kugler J, Pohl M. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving generic activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 6:CD006876.

7. Asanuma H, Keller A. Neuronal mechanisms of motor learning in mammals. Neuroreport. 1991; 2:217–224.

8. Jung KH, Ha HG, Shin HJ, Ohn SH, Sung DH, Lee PK, Kim YH. Effects of robot-assisted gait therapy on locomotor recovery in stroke patients. J Korean Acad Rehabil Med. 2008; 32:258–266.

9. Diaz I, Gil JJ, Sanchez E. Lower-limb robotic rehabilitation: literature review and challenges. J Robot. 2011; 2011:Article ID 759764.

10. Sale P, Franceschini M, Waldner A, Hesse S. Use of the robot assisted gait therapy in rehabilitation of patients with stroke and spinal cord injury. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012; 48:111–121.

11. Morone G, Iosa M, Bragoni M, De Angelis D, Venturiero V, Coiro P, Riso R, Pratesi L, Paolucci S. Who may have durable benefit from robotic gait training?: a 2-year follow-up randomized controlled trial in patients with subacute stroke. Stroke. 2012; 43:1140–1142.

12. Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Lin KC, Yao G, Wu KY, Chang YJ. Dose-response relationship of robot-assisted stroke motor rehabilitation: the impact of initial motor status. Stroke. 2012; 43:2729–2734.

13. Tejima N. Rehabilitation robotics: a review. Adv Robot. 2000; 14:551–564.

14. Stein J. Adopting new technologies in stroke rehabilitation: the influence of the US health care system. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2009; 45:255–258.