Hardeep Singh1,2, Janelle Unger1,2, José Zariffa1,2,3, Maureen Pakosh1, Susan Jaglal1,2,4,5, B Catharine Craven1,2,6, Kristin E Musselman1,2,4. 1. a Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network , Toronto , ON , Canada. 2. b Rehabilitation Sciences Institute , University of Toronto , Toronto , ON , Canada. 3. c Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering , University of Toronto , Toronto , ON , Canada. 4. d Department of Physical Therapy , University of Toronto , Toronto , ON , Canada. 5. e Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation , University of Toronto , Toronto , ON , Canada. 6. f Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine , University of Toronto , Toronto , ON , Canada.
Abstract
Abstact Purpose: To provide an overview of the feasibility and outcomes of robotic-assisted upper extremity training for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI), and to identify gaps in current research and articulate future research directions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CCTR, CDSR, CINAHL and PubMed on June 7, 2017. Search terms included 3 themes: (1) robotics; (2) SCI; (3) upper extremity. Studies using robots for upper extremity rehabilitation among individuals with cervical SCI were included. Identified articles were independently reviewed by two researchers and compared to pre-specified criteria. Disagreements regarding article inclusion were resolved through discussion. The modified Downs and Black checklist was used to assess article quality. Participant characteristics, study and intervention details, training outcomes, robot features, study limitations and recommendations for future studies were abstracted from included articles. RESULTS: Twelve articles (one randomized clinical trial, six case series, five case studies) met the inclusion criteria. Five robots were exoskeletons and three were end-effectors. Sample sizes ranged from 1 to 17 subjects. Articles had variable quality, with quality scores ranging from 8 to 20. Studies had a low internal validity primarily from lack of blinding or a control group. Individuals with mild-moderate impairments showed the greatest improvements on body structure/function and performance-level measures. This review is limited by the small number of articles, low-sample sizes and the diversity of devices and their associated training protocols, and outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests robot-assisted interventions are safe, feasible and can reduce active assistance provided by therapists. Implications for rehabilitation Robot-assisted upper extremity training for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury is safe, feasible and can reduce hands-on assistance provided by therapists. Future research in robotics rehabilitation with individuals with spinal cord injury is needed to determine the optimal device and training protocol as well as effectiveness.
Abstact Purpose: To provide an overview of the feasibility and outcomes of robotic-assisted upper extremity training for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI), and to identify gaps in current research and articulate future research directions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CCTR, CDSR, CINAHL and PubMed on June 7, 2017. Search terms included 3 themes: (1) robotics; (2) SCI; (3) upper extremity. Studies using robots for upper extremity rehabilitation among individuals with cervical SCI were included. Identified articles were independently reviewed by two researchers and compared to pre-specified criteria. Disagreements regarding article inclusion were resolved through discussion. The modified Downs and Black checklist was used to assess article quality. Participant characteristics, study and intervention details, training outcomes, robot features, study limitations and recommendations for future studies were abstracted from included articles. RESULTS: Twelve articles (one randomized clinical trial, six case series, five case studies) met the inclusion criteria. Five robots were exoskeletons and three were end-effectors. Sample sizes ranged from 1 to 17 subjects. Articles had variable quality, with quality scores ranging from 8 to 20. Studies had a low internal validity primarily from lack of blinding or a control group. Individuals with mild-moderate impairments showed the greatest improvements on body structure/function and performance-level measures. This review is limited by the small number of articles, low-sample sizes and the diversity of devices and their associated training protocols, and outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests robot-assisted interventions are safe, feasible and can reduce active assistance provided by therapists. Implications for rehabilitation Robot-assisted upper extremity training for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury is safe, feasible and can reduce hands-on assistance provided by therapists. Future research in robotics rehabilitation with individuals with spinal cord injury is needed to determine the optimal device and training protocol as well as effectiveness.