ABSTRACT
Introduction: Robotic therapy allow to propose sessions of controlled and identical exercises, customizing settings, and characteristics on the individual patient. The effectiveness of robotic assisted therapy is still under study and the use of robots in clinical practice is still limited. Moreover, the possibility of treatment at home allows to reduce the economic costs and time to be borne by the patient and the caregiver and is a valid tool during periods of pandemic such as covid. The aim of this study is to assess whether a robotic home-based treatment rehabilitation using the iCONE robotic device has effects on a stroke population, despite the chronic condition of patients involved and the absence of a therapist next to the patient while performing the exercises. Materials and methods: All patients underwent an initial (T0) and final (T1) assessment with the iCONE robotic device and clinical scales. After T0 evaluation, the robot was delivered to the patient's home for 10 days of at-home treatment (5 days a week for 2 weeks). Results: Comparison between T0 and T1 evaluations revealed some significant improvements in robot-evaluated indices such as Independence and Size for the Circle Drawing exercise and Movement Duration for Point-to-Point exercise, but also in the MAS of the elbow. From the analysis of the acceptability questionnaire, a general appreciation of the robot emerged: patients spontaneously asked for the addition of further sessions and to continue therapy. Discussion: Telerehabilitation of patients suffering from a chronic stroke is an area that is still little explored. From our experience, this is one of the first studies to carry out a telerehabilitation with these characteristics. The use of robots can become a method to reduce the rehabilitation health costs, to ensure continuity of care, and to arrive in more distant places or where the availability of resources is limited. Conclusion: From the data obtained, this rehabilitation seems to be promising for this population. Moreover, promoting the recovery of the upper limb, iCONE can improve patient's quality of life. It would be interesting to conduct RCT studies to compare a conventional treatment in structure with a robotic telematics treatment.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are strongly influenced by the adequacy of rehabilitation and the consequent functional recovery. The economic impact of rehabilitation it is not negligible. Inpatient rehabilitation can be 5 to 26 times more expensive than the home-based rehabilitation. This topic is extremely relevant as the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of unsupervised rehabilitation in orthopedic surgery. The aim of this review and meta-analysis is to investigate the scientific evidence regarding the comparison between supervised and unsupervised rehabilitation following TKA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following PRISMA guideline, a comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases using combinations of keywords and MeSH descriptors: "total "Knee replacement," "Arthroplasty", "Rehabilitation" was performed from inception to December 2021. All relevant articles were retrieved, and their bibliographies were searched for further relevant references. Only English written randomized controlled trials comparing supervised and unsupervised rehabilitation following TKA were included in this systematic review. The outcomes considered were long-term pain, physical function, knee flexion and extension ROM, 6 minute walking test (6MWT) and timed up and go test (TUG). RESULTS: 11 studies (2.181 patients in total) were included in this systematic review. The long-term pain outcome showed no significant differences (Std. Mean Difference [SMD] = 0.00, 95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.16, 0.017) between the supervised (n = 397) and unsupervised (n = 255). Physical function showed no significant differences among the two groups (mean difference [MD] = 0.84, 95 % CI = -1.82, 3.50). Non-significant differences were also found for knee ROM flexion (mean difference [MD] = -0.46, 95 % CI = -2.95, 2.04) and for knee extension (mean difference [MD] = 0.54, 95 % CI = -0.89, 1.97). At the 52-week follow-up, the unsupervised group showed significant better results in 6MWT (mean difference [MD] = -26.10, 95 % CI = -47.62, -4.59) and in Timed up and go test (mean difference [MD] = 1.33, 95 % CI = 0.50, 2.15). CONCLUSION: This systematic review did not show a significant clinical difference in improving pain, function, and mobility outcomes after TKA between supervised PT and unsupervised PT. Therefore, it would appear that supervised rehabilitation did not had additional benefits compared to unsupervised rehabilitation.