Scientific Evidence for New Technologies

Audience Scientific Evidence for New Technologies 2 Clinicians Scientist s Engineer s Others

Societal drivers Drivers for New Technologies 3 Technological drivers Clinical drivers Ageing of population Cost of health care Burden in daily life Available technology Fast growing Home use Unused recovery potential Evidence-based knowledge Scientific Evidence for New Technologies

Usage of New Technologies 4 motor learning brain injury therapy assessmentsdaily activities New technologies for enhanced and effective therapy … … and assessing recovery progress Scientific Evidence for New Technologies

Potential influence of New Technologies Principles of New Technologies 5 Advanced Rehabilitation Technology Varied, goal oriented repetitions at limit of performance & Feedback from successful performance Reduce support Increase challenge Muscle strength Neuroplasticity Motor Learning Improved performance Movement & sensory input

1. Robot-assisted Therapy 2. Non-actuator Devices 3. Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) 4. Virtual Reality 5. Brain Stimulation Contents 6 Scientific Evidence for New Technologies

ROBOT-ASSISTED THERAPY 7 1 Scientific Evidence for New Technologies

Robot-Assisted Therapy: Lower Extremity Scientific Evidence of New Technologies 8 Walking improvements Positive effect on gait speed, walking distance and basic activities of daily living Rehabilitation Time Non-ambulatory patients in early rehabilitation profit most from robot-assisted therapy Dependency Every fifth dependency in walking could be avoided using robotic-assisted training Effectiveness Robotic therapy in combination with conventional therapy is more effective than physiotherapy alone (Mehrholz et al. 2013)

Robot-Assisted Therapy: Upper Extremity Scientific Evidence of New Technologies 9 Proximal Improvements Significant effect on motor function of shoulder and elbow, muscle strength and pain reduction Distal Improvements Elbow and wrist training enhances motor function and muscle strength Transfer to Daily Life Improves generic activities of daily living and arm function (Veerbeek et al. 2014) Risk No increased risk of injury with intensive training Recovery Time Robotic therapy improves motor function in a shorter time than physiotherapy (Mehrholz et al. 2012) (Veerbeek et al. 2014) (Mehrholz et al. 2012) (Sale et al. 2014)

Cost effectiveness 10 Conventional gait training therapy costs are low Robot-assisted therapy fixed costs (device purchase price) are high In the long term robot-assisted therapy is cost effective Profit Loss Scientific Evidence for New Technologies Cost [€] Time from start of treatment [Years] Type of gait training Years to break even (Morrison 2011, Wagner et al. 2011)

Cost effectivness II 11 Costs for 5 weeks of robot-assisted training with a moderate-to-low cost device can be recovery by a dehospitalization of 1.2 days earlier. Any further reduction would result in money savings (Stefano et al. 2014). “Robotic technology can be a valuable and economically sustainable aid in the management of poststroke patient rehabilitation.”, Stefano et al Scientific Evidence for New Technologies € €

NON-ACTUATOR DEVICES 12 2 Scientific Evidence for New Technologies

Clinical Evidence of Non-Actuator Devices Scientific Evidence of New Technologies 13 Effectiveness Matches gains of conventional therapy Functionality Arm weight support improves hand movements important for functional ability Range of Motion Increases range of motion for hand and arm movements Undesired Synergies Possibly reduces abnormal coupling between shoulder and elbow (Prange et al. 2014) (Kloosterman et al. 2010, Krabben et al. 2012) (Bartolo et al. 2014) (Krabben et al. 2012)

FUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL STIMULATION (FES) 14 3 Scientific Evidence for New Technologies

Clinical Evidence of FES Scientific Evidence of New Technologies 15 Wrist and Hand Positive effect on muscle strength and motor function Functionality Improves upper extremity function and motor processing Pain Significant reduction of pain (Arantes et al. 2007) Spasticity Decreased spasticity Walking Speed Surface-applied and implanted FES increases walking speed (Wilson et al. 2014) (Ring and Weingarden 2007) (Daly and Ruff 2007, Hara 2008) (Kottink 2007, Veerbeek et al. 2014)

SENSOR TECHNOLOGY 16 4 Scientific Evidence for New Technologies

VIRTUAL REALITY 17 4 Scientific Evidence for New Technologies

Clinical Evidence of Virtual Reality Scientific Evidence of New Technologies 18 Cognitive aspects Supports cognitive rehabilitation Upper Extremity Improves upper extremity function and motor processing Environment VR environments stimulates neuroplastic change and enhances learning effects Lower Extremity Improves walking speed and muscle strength, therefore improving overall quality of life (Rose et al. 1998) (Kuttuva et al. 2006) (Sviestrup 2004) Motivation Increases self confidence and motivation (Riva 1998)

BRAIN STIMULATION 19 5 Scientific Evidence for New Technologies

Clinical Evidence of Brain Stimulation Scientific Evidence of New Technologies 20 Pain Relieves 20-58% of chronic pain Optimal Effect Best gains if paired with relevant behavioral experiences Severely impaired Improvements even for patients with severe motor deficits Motor Function Improves motor function which can last for several weeks (Fregni et al. 2006) (Hummel et al. 2006, Boggio et al. 2006) + (Gladstone and Black 2000) (Fregni et al. 2006)

Contact International Industry Society in Advanced Rehabilitation Technology (IISART) General Information Scientific Evidence for New Technologies

Literature [1] Mehrholz et al. 2013, Electromechanical- assisted training for walking after stroke. [2] Verbeek et al. 2014, What Is the Evidence for Physical Therapy Poststroke? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. [3] Mehrholz et al. 2012, Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving generic activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. [4] Sale et al. 2014, Effects of upper limb robot- assisted therapy on motor recovery in subacute stroke patients. [5] Wagner et al. 2011, An economic analysis of robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. [6] Bartolo et al. 2014, Arm weight support training improves functional motor outcome and movement smoothness after stroke. [7] Kloosterman et al. 2010, Influence of gravity compensation on kinematics and muscle activation patterns during reach and retrieval in subjects with cervical spinal cord injury: an explorative study. [8] Krabben et al. 2012, Influence of gravity compensation training on synergistic movement patterns of the upper extremity after stroke, a pilot study. [9] Prange et al. 2014, The effect of arm support combined with rehabilitation games on upper- extremity function in subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial. [10] Daly and Ruff 2007, Construction of efficacious gait and upper limb functional interventions based on brain plasticity evidence and model-based measures for stroke patients. [11] Kottink et al. 2007, A randomized controlled trial of an implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulator on walking speed and activity in poststroke hemiplegia. [12] Hara 2008, Neurorehabilitation with new functional electrical stimulation for hemiparetic upper extremity in stroke patients. [13] Ring and Weingarden 2007, Neuromodulation by functional electrical stimulation (FES) of limb paralysis after stroke. [14] Arantes et al. 2007, Effects on Functional Electrical Stimulation applied to the wrist and finger muscles on hemiparetic subjects: a systematic review of the literature. [15] Wilson et al. 2014, Peripheral nerve stimulation compared with usual care for pain relief of hemiplegic shoulder pain: a randomized controlled trial. [16] Kuttuva et al. 2006, The Rutgers Arm, a Rehabilitation System in Virtual Reality: A Pilot Study. [17] Sviestrup 2004, Motor Rehabilitation Using Virtual Reality. [18] Rose et al. 1998, Virtual environments in brain damage rehabilitation: a rational from basic neuroscience. [19] Riva 1998, Virtual reality in paraplegiga: a VR-enhanced orthopaedic appliance for walking and rehabilitation. [20] Fregni et al. 2006, A sham-controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury. [21] Boggio et al. 2006, Hand function improvement with low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere in a severe case of stroke. [22] Gladstone and Black 2000, Enhancing recovery after stroke with noradrenergic pharmacotherapy: a new frontier? [23] Fregni al. 2006, A randomized, sham- controlled, proof of principle study of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia [24] Hummel et al. 2006, Effects of brain polarization on reaction times and pinch force in chronic stroke. 22

Image sources Slide 2 – Audience Background: Slide 3 – Reasons for New Technologies Left: Middle (upper): Middle (lower): Right: Slide 4 – Usage of New Technologies 1st image (motor learning): 2ndimage (brain injury): 3rd image (therapy):Hocoma 4th image (assessments): 5th image (daily activities): 011.jpghttp:// 011.jpg Slide 5 – Usage of New Technologies II Images:Presentation slides 23 Scientific Evidence for New Technologies