Electromechanical and Robotic Devices for Gait and Balance Rehabilitation of Children with Neurological Disability: A Systematic Review
In the last two decades, a growing interest has been focused on gait and balance robot-assisted rehabilitation in children with neurological disabilities. Robotic devices allow the implementation of intensive, task-specific training fostering functional recovery and neuroplasticity phenomena. Howeve...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Applied sciences 2021-12, Vol.11 (24), p.12061, Article 12061 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | In the last two decades, a growing interest has been focused on gait and balance robot-assisted rehabilitation in children with neurological disabilities. Robotic devices allow the implementation of intensive, task-specific training fostering functional recovery and neuroplasticity phenomena. However, limited attention has been paid to the protocols used in this research framework. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the existing literature on robotic systems for the rehabilitation of gait and balance in children with neurological disabilities and their rehabilitation applications. The literature search was carried out independently and synchronously by three authors on the following databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PeDro, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. The data collected included three subsections referring to clinical, technical, and regulatory aspects. Thirty-one articles out of 81 found on the primary literature search were included in the systematic review. Most studies involved children with cerebral palsy. Only one-third of the studies were randomized controlled trials. Overall, 17 devices (nine end-effector systems and eight exoskeletons) were investigated, among which only 4 (24%) were bore the CE mark. Studies differ on rehabilitation protocols duration, intensity, and outcome measures. Future research should improve both rehabilitation protocols' and devices' descriptions. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2076-3417 2076-3417 |
DOI: | 10.3390/app112412061 |