English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The use of robotic systems in physical rehabilitation protocols has become increasingly attractive and has been given more focus in the last decade as a result of the high prevalence of motor deficits in the population, which is linked to an overburdened healthcare system. In accordance with current trends, three robotic devices have been designed, called ParReEx Elbow, ParReEx Wrist, and ASPIRE, which were designed to improve upper-limb medical recovery (shoulder, elbow, forearm, and wrist). The three automated systems were tested in a hospital setting with 23 patients (12 men and 11 women) suffering from motor deficits caused by various neurological diseases such as stroke, Parkinson's disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The patients were divided into three groups based on their pathology (vascular, extrapyramidal, and neuromuscular). Objective clinical measures, such as the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale, goniometry, and dynamometry, were used to compare pre- and post-rehabilitation assessments for both robotic-aided and manual physical rehabilitation therapy. The results of these tests showed that, with the exception of a few minor differences in muscular strength recovery, the robotic-assisted rehabilitation methods performed equally as well as the manual techniques, though only minor improvements were validated during short-term rehabilitation. The greatest achievements were obtained in the goniometric analysis where some rehabilitation amplitudes increased by over 40% in the vascular group, but the same analysis returned regressions in the neuromuscular group. The MRC scale analysis returned no significant differences, with most regressions occurring in the neuromuscular group. The dynamometric analysis mostly returned improvements, but the highest value evolution was 19.07%, which also in the vascular group. While the results were encouraging, more research is needed with a larger sample size and a longer study period in order to provide more information regarding the efficacy of both rehabilitation methods in neurological illnesses.

Comparative Assessment of Robotic versus Classical Physical Therapy Using Muscle Strength and Ranges of Motion Testing in Neurological Diseases