Portable robots for upper-limb rehabilitation after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We don't need more useless studies like this! Survivors would like you to deliver EXACT REHAB PROTOCOLS! Do you plan on getting there after you become the 1 in 4 per WHO that has a stroke?

 Portable robots for upper-limb rehabilitation after stroke: a systematic
review and meta-analysis

ReseaRch aRticle
AnnAls of Medicine
2024, Vol. 56, no. 1, 2337735
Portable robots for upper-limb rehabilitation after stroke: a systematic
review and meta-analysis
Kevin c. tsenga,b , le Wangb, chunkai hsiehb and alice M. Wongb,c
adepartment of industrial design, national Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, Roc; bProduct design and development
laboratory, Taoyuan, Taiwan, Roc; cdepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Taoyuan,
Taoyuan, Taiwan, Roc

ABSTRACT

Background:  

 

Robot-assisted upper-limb rehabilitation has been studied for many years, with

many randomised controlled trials (Rcts) investigating the effects of robotic-assisted training on
affected limbs. the current trend directs towards end-effector devices. however, most studies
have focused on the effectiveness of rehabilitation devices, but studies on device sizes are
relatively few.
 

Goal: 

 

 systematically review the effect of a portable rehabilitation robot (PRR) on the rehabilitation
effectiveness of paralysed upper limbs compared with non-robotic therapy.
 

Methods: 

 

 a meta-analysis was conducted on literature that included the Fugl-Meyer assessment
(FMa) obtained from the PubMed and Web of science (Wos) electronic databases until June
2023.
 

Results:  

 

a total of 9 studies, which included Rcts, were completed and a meta-analysis was
conducted on 8 of them. the analysis involved 295 patients. the influence on upper-limb function
before and after treatment in a clinical environment is analysed by comparing the experimental
group using the portable upper-limb rehabilitation robot with the control group using conventional
therapy. the result shows that portable robots prove to be effective (FMa: sMD = 0.696, 95% =
0.099 to.293, p < 0.05).
 

Discussion:  

Both robot-assisted and conventional rehabilitation effects are comparable. in some studies, PRR performs better than conventional rehabilitation, but conventional treatments are still irreplaceable. smaller size with better portability has its advantages, and portable upper-limb
rehabilitation robots are feasible in clinical rehabilitation.
 

Conclusion: 

 

 although portable upper-limb rehabilitation robots are clinically beneficial, few
studies have focused on portability. Further research should focus on modular design so that
rehabilitation robots can be decomposed, which benefits remote rehabilitation and household
applications.