Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 1.736
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.135
Index Copernicus  – 168.52
MEiN – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2018, vol. 27, nr 12, December, p. 1661–1669

doi: 10.17219/acem/74556

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Design and control of system for elbow rehabilitation: Preliminary findings

Tadeusz Mikołajczyk1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Adam Kłodowski2,A,B,C,D,E,F, Emilia Mikołajewska3,B,C,D,E,F, Paweł Walkowiak1,B,C,D,E,F, Pedro Berjano4,A,B,C,D,E,F, Jorge Hugo Villafañe5,A,B,C,D,E,F, Francesco Aggogeri6,B,C,D,E,F, Alberto Borboni6,B,C,D,E,F, Davide Fausti7,B,C,D,E,F, Gianluigi Petrogalli7,B,C,D,E,F

1 Department of Production Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Science and Technology, Bydgoszcz, Poland

2 Laboratory of Machine Design, School of Energy Systems, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland

3 Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland

4 GSpine4 Spine Surgery Division, Institute for Recovery and Care of Scientific Characteristics – Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute, Milan, Italy

5 Institute for Recovery and Care of Scientific Characteristics – Don Gnocchi Foundation, Milan, Italy

6 Applied Mechanics Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Brescia, Italy

7 Research and Development Department, Polibrixia Innovation Engineering, Brescia, Italy

Abstract

Background. The use of an exoskeleton elbow is considered an effective treatment in several pathologies, including post-stroke complications, traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI), as well as in patients with neurodegenerative disorders. The effectiveness of rehabilitation is closely linked to a suitably chosen therapy. The treatment can be performed only by specialized personnel, significantly supported by the use of automated devices.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to present a novel exoskeleton for elbow rehabilitation without a complicated control system.
Material and Methods. Single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) solution in constructing the prototype of an elbow exoskeleton for rehabilitation purposes has been applied. The simplicity of the actuation mechanism was set as one of the priorities in the design; thus, a single-axis stepper motor with a controller was found to be adequate for providing a reliable and precise source of motion for the exoskeleton.
Results. Technological development may provide novel solutions, such as an exoskeleton – a wearable, external structure which supports or (in selected applications) even replaces the muscle actuation in the patient. The reported advantages of the proposed exoskeleton reflect current state-of-the-art. The proposed control strategy relies on closed-loop position control, performance, low manufacturing cost, and predicted performance in a rehabilitation scenario. All these factors play an important role in establishing the directions for further research, e.g., an integrated force sensor in the device, measurements of torque interactions on the elbow joint, and assessment and response to an overload of articulation.
Conclusion. This study suggests not only the clinical but also the possible economic and logistical advantages offered by the portability of the system, and its effective support for therapists applying an elbow exoskeleton.

Key words

rehabilitation, assistive technology, elbow, exoskeleton, upper limb exoskeleton

References (35)

  1. Kiguchi K, Kariya S, Watanabe K, Izumi K, Fukuda T. An exoskeletal robot for human elbow motion support-sensor fusion, adaptation, and control. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern. 2001;31(3):353–361.
  2. Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(19):1772–1783.
  3. Lum P, Reinkensmeyer D, Mahoney R, Rymer WZ, Burgar C. Robotic devices for movement therapy after stroke: Current status and challenges to clinical acceptance. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2002;8(4):40–53.
  4. Marchal-Crespo L, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Review of control strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;6:20.
  5. Takahashi CD, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le V, Motiwala RR, Cramer SC. Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain. 2008;131(Pt 2):425–437.
  6. Howard A, Brooks D, Brown E, Gebregiorgis A, Chen YP. Non-contact versus contact-based sensing methodologies for in-home upper arm robotic rehabilitation. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2013;2013: 6650487.
  7. Brochard S, Robertson J, Médée B, Rémy-Néris O. What’s new in new technologies for upper extremity rehabilitation? Curr Opin Neurol. 2010;23(6):683–687.
  8. Li C, Rusák Z, Horváth I, Ji L. Influence of complementing a robotic upper limb rehabilitation system with video games on the engagement of the participants: A study focusing on muscle activities. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014;37(4):334–342.
  9. Tsagarakis NG, Caldwell DG. Development and control of a “soft-actuated” exoskeleton for use in physiotherapy and training. Auton Robots. 2003;15(1):21–33.
  10. Pons JL. Rehabilitation exoskeletal robotics. The promise of an emerging field. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2010;29(3):57–63.
  11. Taveggia G, Villafañe JH, Vavassori F, Lecchi C, Borboni A, Negrini S. Multimodal treatment of distal sensorimotor polyneuropathy in diabetic patients: A randomized clinical trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2014;37(4):242–252.
  12. Fausti D, Petrogalli G, Villafañe JH, Faglia R. Study, design and preliminary tests of an automatic device for elbow rehabilitation. Appl Mech Mater. 2015;783:1–15.
  13. Nycz CJ, Delph MA, Fischer GS. Modeling and design of a tendon actuated soft robotic exoskeleton for hemiparetic upper limb rehabilitation. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015:3889–3892.
  14. Taveggia G, Borboni A, Mule C, Villafañe JH, Negrini S. Conflicting results of robot-assisted versus usual gait training during postacute rehabilitation of stroke patients: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Rehabil Res. 2016;39(1):29–35.
  15. Bishop L, Stein J. Three upper limb robotic devices for stroke rehabilitation: A review and clinical perspective. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33(1):3–11.
  16. Hochstenbach-Waelen A, Seelen HA. Embracing change: Practical and theoretical considerations for successful implementation of technology assisting upper limb training in stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012;9:52.
  17. Loureiro RC, Harwin WS, Nagai K, Johnson M. Advances in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: A technology push. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2011;49(10):1103–1118.
  18. Lu EC, Wang RH, Hebert D, Boger J, Galea MP, Mihailidis A. The development of an upper limb stroke rehabilitation robot: Identification of clinical practices and design requirements through a survey of therapists. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(5):420–431.
  19. Maciejasz P, Eschweiler J, Gerlach-Hahn K, Jansen-Troy A, Leonhardt S. A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:3.
  20. Morales R, Badesa FJ, Garcia-Aracil N, Sabater JM, Perez-Vidal C. Pneumatic robotic systems for upper limb rehabilitation. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2011;49(10):1145–1156.
  21. Huang LL, Lee CF, Hsieh CL, Chen MH. Upper extremity rehabilitation equipment for stroke patients in Taiwan: Usage problems and improvement needs. Occup Ther Int. 2013;20(4):205–214.
  22. Sukal-Moulton T, Krosschell KJ, Gaebler-Spira DJ. Dewald JP. Motor impairment factors related to brain injury timing in early hemiparesis. Part I: Expression of upper-extremity weakness. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28(1):13–23.
  23. Zackowski KM, Dromerick AW, Sahrmann SA, Thach WT, Bastian AJ. How do strength, sensation, spasticity and joint individuation relate to the reaching deficits of people with chronic hemiparesis? Brain. 2004;127(Pt 5):1035–1046.
  24. Mottram CJ, Suresh NL, Heckman CJ, Gorassini MA, Rymer WZ. Origins of abnormal excitability in biceps brachii motoneurons of spastic-paretic stroke survivors. J Neurophysiol. 2009;102(4):2026–2038.
  25. Gracies JM. Pathophysiology of spastic paresis. II: Emergence of muscle overactivity. Muscle Nerve. 2005;31(5):552–571.
  26. Brunnstrom S. Movement Therapy in Hemiplegia: A Neurophysiological Approach. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1970.
  27. Jeong-Ho P, Kyoung-Soub L, Kyeong-Hun J, Dong-Hyun K, Hyung-Soon P. Low cost and light-weight multi-DOF exoskeleton for comprehensive upper limb rehabilitation. Proceedings of 11th Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI). 2014:138–139.
  28. Vitiello N, Lenzi T, Roccello S, et al. NEUROExos: A powered elbow exoskeleton for physical rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2013;29(1):220–235.
  29. Mikołajczyk T, Olaru A, Walkowiak P. Upper limb exoskeleton controlled by stepper motor. Applied Mechanics and Materials. 2015;811:305–310.
  30. Step2CNC. https://www.ebmia.pl/step2cnc-p-11637.html. Updated January 5, 2015. Accessed January 5, 2015.
  31. Mikołajczyk T, Borboni A, Mackowski D, Matuszewski M. Example of tool with two numerical controlled axes. Applied Mechanics and Materials. 2015;772:224–229.
  32. Mikołajczyk T, Dorsz D, Romanowski L. Design and control system of parallel kinematics manipulator. Applied Mechanics and Materials. 2013;436:390–339.
  33. TeamViewer. https://www.teamviewer.com/pl/download/windows/. Updated January 5, 2015. Accessed January 5, 2015.
  34. Poli P, Morone G, Rosati G, Masiero S. Robotic technologies and rehabilitation: New tools for stroke patients’ therapy. Biomed Res Int. 2013:153872.
  35. Masiero S, Poli P, Rosati G, et al. The value of robotic systems in stroke rehabilitation. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014;11(2):187–198.
© Wroclaw Medical University