Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Upper limbs’ assistive devices for stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review on design engineering solutions

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic review focused on different mechanical design configurations (purely mechanical and mechatronic-assistive devices) used specifically to post-stroke rehabilitation and therapeutics activities. The process of synthesis of the 17 paper more relevant indicated the main tests prescribed and used for therapeutic and rehabilitation activities poststroke. During the review process, it was observed that there is no clear to choice of design configuration assistive device in a multidiscipline domain, specifically for upper limbs. There was no identification of papers that presented a comparative study of performance in rehabilitation treatment using mechanical and mechatronic robotic devices. The systematic review indicated that there are no significant differences between DT and CT, showing similar performances in rehabilitation therapies. The Fugl–Meyer assessment was the main outcome measure used in the rehabilitation treatments. All outcome measures presented in the studies were analyzed individually. The synthesis process presented in this paper indicated similar results between purely mechanical and mechatronic robotic assistive devices on the performance measures during the rehabilitation process in post-stroke patients. The similarity between performance of the purely mechanical and mechatronic-assistive devices for rehabilitation and therapeutic treatments reinforces the importance of the design for assistive technology in order to focus on ease of use, security, reliability, ergonomics and possibility of home use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boiselle AK, Grajo LC (2018) They said: a global perspective on access to assistive technology. Open J Occup Ther 6(3):2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Squires LA, Willians N, Morrison VL (2019) Matching and accepting assistive technology in multiple sclerosis: a focus group study with people with multiple sclerosis, carers and occupational therapists. J Health Psychol 24(4):480–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105316677293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. World Heath Organization – WHO. (2018) Global cooperation on assistive technology (GATE). https://www.who.int/news-room/papers-detail/open-consultation-assistive-product-specification-drafts. Accessed 6 th May 2020.

  4. Van Ommeren AL, Smulders LC, Prange-Lasonder GB, Buurke JH, Veltink PH, Rietman JS (2018) Assistive technology for the upper extremities after stroke: systematic review of users’ needs. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 5(2):e10510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Riemer-Reiss ML, Wacker RR (2000) Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. J Rehabil 66(3):44–50

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gherardini F, Mascia MT, Bettelli V, Leali F (2018) A co-design method for the additive manufacturing of customized assistive devices for hand pathologies. J Integr Des Process Sci 22(1):21–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Allison R et al (2016) Incidence, time course and predictors of impairments relating to caring for the profoundly affected arm after stroke: a systematic review. Physiother Res Int 21(4):210–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hunnicutt JL, Aaron SE, Embry AE, Cence B, Morgan P, Bowden MG, Gregory CM (2016) The effects of power training in young and older adults after stroke. Stroke Res Treat. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7316250.5p

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Raimundo KC, Silveira LS, Kishi MS, Fernandes LFRM, Sande de Souza LAP (2011) Análise cinemática e eletromiográfica do alcance em pacientes com acidente vascular encefálico. Fisioter Mov 24(10):87–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rodrigues ACT (2016) Avaliação eletromiográfica dos músculos do membro superior de indivíduos hemiparéticos com uso da terapia do espelho. Thesis (Master's) - Graduate program in human development and technologies. Universidade estadual paulista júlio de mesquita filho. p 38

  11. Gonçalves ACBF (2013) Usability Analysis of a robotic device developed for ankle rehabilitation of poststroke hemiparetic subjects. Thesis (Master) - São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo.139 p

  12. Cancela DMG (2008) O acidente vascular cerebral–classificação, principais consequências e reabilitação. O portal do Psicólogo, Portugal, pp 2–18

    Google Scholar 

  13. Abbruzzese K, Lee D, Swedberg A, Talasan H, Paliwal M (2011) An innovative design for an assistive arm orthosis for stroke and muscle dystrophy. In: 2011 IEEE 37th annual northeast bioengineering conference (NEBEC), p 1–2, IEEE

  14. Gandolla M, Antonietti A, Longatelli V, Pedrocchi A (2020) The effectiveness of wearable upper limb assistive devices in degenerative neuromuscular diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Varela R C B, Oliver, F (2013) A utilização de Tecnologia Assistiva na vida cotidiana de crianças com deficiência. Ciência & Saúde coletiva [online], 18 (6): 1773-1784.

  16. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):e1–e34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cordeiro AM, Oliveira GMD, Rentería JM, Guimarães CA (2007) Systematic review: a narrative review. Rev Col Bras Cir 34(6):428–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Barbosa IM, Cavalcanti A, Silveira ZC (2019) Design for assistive technology: development an upper limbs equipment for rehabilitation. In: 25th ABCM international congress of mechanical engineering, COBEM 2019. Uberlandia, MG, Brazil. https://eventos.abcm.org.br/cobem2019/DOI://10.26678

  19. Norouzi-Gheidari N, Archambault PS, Fung J (2012) Effects of robot-assisted therapy on stroke rehabilitation in upper limbs: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Rehabil Res Dev 49(4):479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bohannon RW, Smith MB (1987) Interrater reliability of a modified ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther 67(2):206–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nijboer TC, Kollen BJ, Kwakkel G (2014) The impact of recovery of visuo-spatial neglect on motor recovery of the upper paretic limb after stroke. PLoS ONE 9(6):e100584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Franck JA, Smeets RJEM, Seelen HAM (2019) Evaluation of a functional hand orthosis combined with electrical stimulation adjunct to arm-hand rehabilitation in subacute stroke patients with a severely to moderately affected hand function. Disabil Rehabil 41(10):1160–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, Weber K (1985) Adult norms for the box and block test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther 39(6):386–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hu XL, Tong KY, Li R, Xue JJ, Ho SK, Chen P (2012) The effects of electromechanical wrist robot assistive system with neuromuscular electrical stimulation for stroke rehabilitation. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 22(3):431–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Villafañe JH, Taveggia G, Galeri S, Bissolotti L, Mullè C, Imperio G, Negrini S (2018) Efficacy of short-term robot-assisted rehabilitation in patients with hand paralysis after stroke: a randomized clinical trial. Hand 13(1):95–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cho KH, Song W (2015) Robot-assisted reach training for improving upper extremity function of chronic stroke. Tohoku J Exp Med 237(2):149–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Masiero S, Armani M, Ferlini G, Rosati G, Rossi A (2014) Randomized trial of a robotic assistive device for the upper extremity during early inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 28(4):377–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Araújo RC, Junior FL, Rocha DN, Sono TS, Pinotti M (2011) Effects of intensive arm training with an electromechanical orthosis in chronic stroke patients: a preliminary study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 92(11):1746–1753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stein J, Narendran K, McBean J, Krebs K, Hughes R (2007) Electromyography-controlled exoskeletal upper-limb–powered orthosis for exercise training after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 86(4):255–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim GJ, Rivera L, Stein J (2015) Combined clinic-home approach for upper limb robotic therapy after stroke: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 96(12):2243–2248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Peters HT, Page SJ, Persch A (2017) Giving them a hand: wearing a myoelectric elbow-wrist-hand orthosis reduces upper extremity impairment in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 98(9):1821–1827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dunaway S, Dezsi DB, Perkins J, Tran D, Naft J (2017) Case report on the use of a custom myoelectric elbow–wrist–hand orthosis for the remediation of upper extremity paresis and loss of function in chronic stroke. Mil Med 182(7):e1963–e1968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Woo Y, Jeon H, Hwang S, Choi B, Lee J (2013) Kinematics variations after spring-assisted orthosis training in persons with stroke. Prosthet Orthot Int 37(4):311–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Franck JA, Timmermans AA, Seelen HA (2013) Effects of a dynamic hand orthosis for functional use of the impaired upper limb in sub-acute stroke patients: a multiple single case experimental design study. Technol Disabil 25(3):177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nijenhuis SM, Prange GB, Stienentt AHA, Buurke JH, Rietman JS (2015) Direct effect of a dynamic wrist and hand orthosis on reach and grasp kinematics in chronic stroke. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR). p 404–409, IEEE

  36. Nijenhuis SM, Prange-Lasonder GB, Stienen AH, Rietman JS, Buurke JH (2017) Effects of training with a passive hand orthosis and games at home in chronic stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 31(2):207–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sanchez RJ, Liu J, Rao S, Shah P, Smith R, Rahman T, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2006) Automating arm movement training following severe stroke: functional exercises with quantitative feedback in a gravity-reduced environment. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 14(3):378–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Housman SJ, Scott KM, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2009) A randomized controlled trial of gravity-supported, computer-enhanced arm exercise for individuals with severe hemiparesis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 23(5):505–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Iwamur B, Cruz EG, Connelly LL, Fischer HC, Kamper DG (2008) Effect of a gravity-compensating orthosis on reaching after stroke: evaluation of the therapy assistant WREX. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89(11):2121–2128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Loureiro RC, Harwin WS, Nagai K, Johnson M (2011) Advances in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: a technology push. Med Biol Eng Compu 49(10):1103

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grant #2016-1/141556 of National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and by the funding through PhD scholarship. The authors are gratefully to the Professor Roberta F. M. C. Padovez (Federal University of Sao Carlos, SP – Brazil) by lecture on Systematic Review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of São Paulo, São Carlos, Brazil

    I. M. Barbosa, P. R. Alves & Z. C. Silveira

Authors
  1. I. M. Barbosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. R. Alves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Z. C. Silveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Z. C. Silveira.

Additional information

Technical Editor: Adriano Almeida Gonçalves Siqueira.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barbosa, I.M., Alves, P.R. & Silveira, Z.C. Upper limbs’ assistive devices for stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review on design engineering solutions. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 43, 236 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-02919-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-02919-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation