Article
Chances and risks of using robotic assistance systems in the early neurological rehabilitation of critically ill phase-B patients – results from a qualitative analysis
Search Medline for
Authors
-
Ann-Kathrin Waibel
- Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaften Neu-Ulm, Neu-Ulm, Germany
-
Felix Holl
- Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaften Neu-Ulm, Neu-Ulm, Germany
-
Michael Örtl
- Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaften Neu-Ulm, Neu-Ulm, Germany
-
Walter Swoboda
- Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaften Neu-Ulm, Neu-Ulm, Germany
-
Marina Fotteler
- Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaften Neu-Ulm, Neu-Ulm, Germany
| Published: | September 24, 2021 |
|---|
Outline
Text
Background: Manual effort in the therapy of neurological rehabilitation is continuously increasing. Rising numbers of strokes together with a lack of personnel are challenges in neurological care. Robotic assistance systems can offer new therapeutic possibilities for patient mobilization during neurological rehabilitation. These systems enable verticalization in therapy at a early stage. This study investigates the chances and risks of robotic assistance systems in early neurological rehabilitation of critically ill phase-B patients.
Methods: In a qualitative survey, nine experts for neurological rehabilitation therapy and nursing were interviewed about robotic assistance systems. Experts were recruited at three different hospitals with neurological rehabilitation units, one of them already routinely uses a robotic assistance system for neurological rehabilitation. A categorical evaluation of the results was carried out using codes. Additionally, the processes in two of the hospitals were observed and analyzed.
Results: 171 individual codes were extracted from the nine expert interviews. Most of the comments (n=68) referred to the therapeutic and nursing area. Both positive and negative aspects were mentioned. In 61 of the answers/comments, social and ethical aspects played a prominent role. Mostly related to the reduction of workload. The observations show that the total time of therapy without robotics is 50 minutes, while treatment with robotic lasts 55 minutes. Both therapy options require a minimum of two persons.
Conclusion: This study evaluates and confirms a high potential of robot-assisted systems. The most significant added value lies in a reduction of physically demanding work. Both a positive effect on therapy outcomes and a physical relief for staff is expected from the experts. However, experts do not expect robotic systems to streamline processes or replace conventional therapy, but rather supplement it. The small sample of experts limits the study and further research with a larger sample is recommended. For the system's establishment in practice, the effect on brain stimulation should be further investigated.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
The authors declare that an ethics committee vote is not required.
References
- 1.
- Stahmeyer JT, Stubenrauch S, Geyer S, Weissenborn K, Eberhard S. The Frequency and Timing of Recurrent Stroke: An Analysis of Routine Health Insurance Data. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2019. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2019.0711
- 2.
- Pohl M, Berger K, Ketter G, Krusch C, Pause M, Puschendorf W, et al. Langzeitverlauf von Patienten der neurologischen Rehabilitation Phase B: Ergebnisse der 6-Jahres-Nachuntersuchung einer Multicenterstudie. 2011.
- 3.
- Ministerium für Soziales und Integration. Neurologische Frührehabilitation Phase B: Fachplanung für Baden-Württemberg. 2016.
- 4.
- Himaj J, Müller E, Fey B, Neumaier S, Waibel B, Dirschedl P, Wallesch CW. Elzacher Konzept und Leistungskatalog der therapeutischen Pflege in der neurologischen Frührehabilitation (Phase B). Rehabilitation. 2011;50(2):94-102. DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1263189
- 5.
- Tipping CJ, Harrold M, Holland A, Romero L, Nisbet T, Hodgson CL. The effects of active mobilisation and rehabilitation in ICU on mortality and function: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:171–183. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-016-4612-0
- 6.
- Hodgson CL, Capell E, Tipping CJ. Early Mobilization of Patients in Intensive Care: Organization, Communication and Safety Factors that Influence Translation into Clinical Practice. Critical Care. 2018;22:77. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-018-1998-9
- 7.
- Bernhardt J, Thuy MN, Collier JM, Legg LA. Very early versus delayed mobilisation after stroke. The Cochrane Library. 2009. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006187.pub2
- 8.
- Chandrasekaran S, Ariaretnam SK, Tsung J, Dickison D. Early mobilization after total knee replacement reduces the incidence of deep venous thrombosis. ANZ J Surg 79. 2009;79(7-8):526-529. DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.04982.x
- 9.
- Gandolfi M, Geroin C, Tomelleri C, Maddalena I, Kirilova Dimitrova E, Picelli A, et al. Feasibility and safety of early lower limb robot-assisted training in sub-acute stroke patients: a pilot study. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 2017;53(6):870-82. DOI: 10.23736/s1973-9087.17.04468-9
- 10.
- Bendel O, editor. Pflegeroboter. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler; 2018.
- 11.
- Merda DM, Schmidt K, Kähler B. Pflege 4.0 – Einsatz moderner Technologien aus der Sicht professionell Pflegender. 2017.
- 12.
- Velthoven van MH, Cordon C, Challagalla G. Digitization of healthcare organizations: The digital health landscape and information theory. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2019;124:49-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.01.007
- 13.
- Mayring P. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Background and Procedures. Dordrecht, Heidelberg. Springer; 2014.
- 14.
- Zheng QX, Ge L, Wang CC, Ma QS, Liao YT, Huang PP, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for balance function rehabilitation after stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2019;95:7-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.03.015
- 15.
- Ng MFW, Tong RKY, Li LSW. A pilot study of randomized clinical controlled trial of gait training in subacute stroke patients with partial body-weight support electromechanical gait trainer and functional electrical stimulation: six-month follow-up. Stroke. 2008;9:154–160. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.495705
- 16.
- Masiero S, Poli P, Rosati G, Zanotto D, Iosa M, Paolucci S, Morone G. The value of robotic systems in stroke rehabilitation. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014;11(2):187-198. DOI: 10.1586/17434440.2014.882766
- 17.
- Kumar S, Yadav R, Aafreen. Comparison between Erigo tilt-table exercise and conventional physiotherapy exercises in acute stroke patients: a randomized trial. Archives of Physiotherapy. 2020;10:3. DOI: 10.1186/s40945-020-0075-2
- 18.
- Carpino G, Pezzola A, Urbano M, Guglielmelli E. Assessing Effectiveness and Costs in Robot-Mediated Lower Limbs Rehabilitation: A Meta-Analysis and State of the Art. Journal of Healthcare Engineering. 2018;2018:7492024. DOI: 10.1155/2018/7492024
- 19.
- Raithatha R, Carrico C, Powell ES, Westgate PM, Chelette Ii KC, Lee K, et al. Non-invasive brain stimulation and robot-assisted gait training after incomplete spinal cord injury: A randomized pilot study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2016;38(1):15-25. DOI: 10.3233/NRE-151291
