Yuichi Kuroda1, Matthew Young1, Haitham Shoman1, Anuj Punnoose1, Alan R Norrish2, Vikas Khanduja3. 1. Young Adult Hip Service, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Addenbrooke's-Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Box 37, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. 2. Department of Academic Orthopaedics, Trauma and Sports Medicine, Queens Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 3. Young Adult Hip Service, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Addenbrooke's-Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Box 37, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. vk279@cam.ac.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As the demand for rehabilitation in orthopaedics increases, so too has the development in advanced rehabilitation technology. However, to date, there are no review papers outlining the broad scope of advanced rehabilitation technology used within the orthopaedic population. The aim of this study is to identify, describe and summarise the evidence for efficacy for all advanced rehabilitation technologies applicable to orthopaedic practice. METHODS: The relevant literature describing the use of advanced rehabilitation technology in orthopaedics was identified from appropriate electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) and a narrative review undertaken. RESULTS: Advanced rehabilitation technologies were classified into two groups: hospital-based and home-based rehabilitation. In the hospital-based technology group, we describe the use of continuous passive motion and robotic devices (after spinal cord injury) and their effect on improving clinical outcomes. We also report on the use of electromagnetic sensor technology for measuring kinematics of upper and lower limbs during rehabilitation. In the home-based technology group, we describe the use of inertial sensors, smartphones, software applications and commercial game hardware that are relatively inexpensive, user-friendly and widely available. We outline the evidence for videoconferencing for promoting knowledge and motivation for rehabilitation as well as the emerging role of virtual reality. CONCLUSIONS: The use of advanced rehabilitation technology in orthopaedics is promising and evidence for its efficacy is generally supportive.
INTRODUCTION: As the demand for rehabilitation in orthopaedics increases, so too has the development in advanced rehabilitation technology. However, to date, there are no review papers outlining the broad scope of advanced rehabilitation technology used within the orthopaedic population. The aim of this study is to identify, describe and summarise the evidence for efficacy for all advanced rehabilitation technologies applicable to orthopaedic practice. METHODS: The relevant literature describing the use of advanced rehabilitation technology in orthopaedics was identified from appropriate electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) and a narrative review undertaken. RESULTS: Advanced rehabilitation technologies were classified into two groups: hospital-based and home-based rehabilitation. In the hospital-based technology group, we describe the use of continuous passive motion and robotic devices (after spinal cord injury) and their effect on improving clinical outcomes. We also report on the use of electromagnetic sensor technology for measuring kinematics of upper and lower limbs during rehabilitation. In the home-based technology group, we describe the use of inertial sensors, smartphones, software applications and commercial game hardware that are relatively inexpensive, user-friendly and widely available. We outline the evidence for videoconferencing for promoting knowledge and motivation for rehabilitation as well as the emerging role of virtual reality. CONCLUSIONS: The use of advanced rehabilitation technology in orthopaedics is promising and evidence for its efficacy is generally supportive.
Authors: Michel Tousignant; Patrick Boissy; Hélène Moffet; Hélène Corriveau; François Cabana; François Marquis; Jessica Simard Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Justine M Naylor; Victoria Ko; Steve Rougellis; Nick Green; Rajat Mittal; Rob Heard; Anthony E T Yeo; Anne Barnett; Danella Hackett; Chris Saliba; Nicole Smith; Martin Mackey; Alison Harmer; Ian A Harris; Sam Adie; Lynette McEvoy Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2011-03-18 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Eddy Y Y Cheung; Thomas K W Ng; Kevin K K Yu; Rachel L C Kwan; Gladys L Y Cheing Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Dahlia Kairy; Michel Tousignant; Nancy Leclerc; Anne-Marie Côté; Mélanie Levasseur; The Telage Researchers Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 3.390