İnme Hastalarında Robot Yardımlı Yürüme Eğitimi
Özet
İnme rehabilitasyonunda yürüme yeteneğinin yeniden kazanılması, hastaların bağımsızlığı ve yaşam kalitesi için kritik bir öneme sahiptir. Son yıllarda, nöroplastisiteyi tetikleyen görev hedefli ve yüksek yoğunluklu egzersizler sağlamak amacıyla robot yardımlı yürüme cihazlarının kullanımı hızla artmıştır. Bu sistemler, end-effector ve eksoskeleton olmak üzere iki ana kategoriye ayrılmakta olup, özellikle eksoskeleton tipi cihazlar eklem stabilitesi ve fizyolojik yürüme modelinin korunmasında avantaj sağlamaktadır. Robotik rehabilitasyon; egzersiz yoğunluğunu artırma, motivasyonu yükseltme ve objektif izlenebilirlik gibi faydalar sunarken, bazı kardiyak, nörolojik ve ortopedik durumlarda kontrendikasyon teşkil edebilmektedir. Literatürdeki çalışmalar, subakut inme hastalarında robot yardımlı eğitimin fonksiyonel iyileşmeyi hızlandırdığını, ancak bu yöntemin geleneksel (konvansiyonel) fizyoterapi yaklaşımlarıyla kombine edilerek uygulanmasının tek başına kullanımına kıyasla bağımsız yürümeyi başarmada çok daha efektif olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, iş yükünü azaltan bu teknolojik sistemlerin yüksek maliyet gibi dezavantajları bulunsa da, gelecekte kişiye özel, standardize edilmiş kombine tedaviler ve ev kullanımına uygun maliyetli cihazlar önemini koruyacaktır.
Gait rehabilitation post-stroke is critical for patients' independence and quality of life, leading to an increasing use of robotic-assisted gait devices to trigger neuroplasticity through task-specific and high-intensity exercises. These systems are categorized into end-effector and exoskeleton types, with exoskeletons offering advantages in joint stability and maintaining physiological gait patterns. While robotic rehabilitation provides benefits such as increased exercise intensity, enhanced motivation, and objective monitoring, it is contraindicated in certain cardiac, neurological, and orthopedic conditions. Literature indicates that robotic-assisted training accelerates functional recovery in subacute stroke patients, and combining this method with conventional physiotherapy approaches is significantly more effective in achieving independent walking compared to using it alone. In conclusion, despite disadvantages like high costs, these workload-reducing technological systems highlight the future importance of personalized, standardized combined treatments and cost-effective devices suitable for home use.
Referanslar
Yavuzer G. (2001). Hemiparezi. Özaras N, Yalçın S. (Ed.), YürümeAnalizi (56-60 ). İstanbul: Avrupa Tıp Kitapçılık
Esquenazi A, Talaty M. (2000) Gait Analysis: Technology and Clinical Applications. Braddom RL, In: Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (93-108). Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company.
Yavuzer, G. (2009). Üç boyutlu niceliksel yürüme analizi. Acta Orthopaedica Traumatologica Turcica, 43(2), 94-101.
Dobkin, B. H. Clinical practice. Rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med, 2005,352:1677–1684,
Hill, K., P. Ellis, J. Bernhardt. Balance and mobility outcomes for stroke patients: a comprehensive audit. Aust J Physiother 1997; 43:173–180,
Behrman AL, Harkema SJ. Locomotor training after human spinal cord injury: a series of case studies. Phys Ther 2000;80:688-70
Karaduman, A., Aksu Yıldırım, S., Tunca Yılmaz, Ö. (2013). İnme rehabilitasyonunda motor öğrenme. İnme Sonrası Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon, 113-124.
Onifer SM, Smith GM, Fouad K. Plasticity after spinal cord injury: relevance to recovery and approaches to facilitate it. Neurotherapeutics 2011;8:283-93.
Van Hedel HJ, Dietz V. Rehabilitation of locomotion after spinal cord injury. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2010;28:123-34
Yang JF, Musselman KE. Training to achieve over ground walking after spinal cord injury: a review of who, what, when, and how. Spinal Cord Med 2012;35:293-304.
Scivoletto G, Tamburella F, Laurenza L. Who is going to walk? A review of the factors influencing walking recovery after spinal cord injury. Front Hum Neurosci 2014;8:141.
Whiteneck G, Gassaway J, Dijkers M. The SCIRehab project: treatment time spent in SCI rehabilitation. Inpatient treatment time across disciplines in spinal cord injury rehabilitation. J Spinal Cord Med. 2011;34(2):133-48.
Edwards MJ, McNeil JE, Greenwood RJ. Process and outcome during early inpatient rehabilitation after brain injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(8):405-410. doi:10.1080/0963828031000062642
Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R. Guidelines for Adult Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association [published correction appears in Stroke. 2017 Feb;48(2):e78]
Iosa M, Morone G, Cherubini A. The Three Laws of Neurorobotics: A Review on What Neurorehabilitation Robots Should Do for Patients and Clinicians. J Med Biol Eng 2016;36:1-11
Dobkin, B. H. An overview of treadmill locomotor training with partial body weight support: a neurophysiologically sound approach whose time has come for randomized clinical trials. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 1999, 13.3: 157-165.
Schwartz I, Meiner Z. Robotic-assisted gait training in neurological patients: who may benefit?. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43(5):1260-1269. doi:10.1007/s10439-015-1283-x
Çevikol A, Çakcı A. (2015) İnme Rehabilitasyonu. Ed: Oğuz H, Çakırbay H, Yanık B. Tıbbi Rehabilitasyon (419-44). İstanbul, Nobel Tıp Kitapevi
Karataş Kaymak G. (2011). İnme. Ed:Gökce Kutsal Y, Beyazova M, Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon (2761-88) . Güneş tıp kitapevleri
Ada L, Dean CM, Morris ME. Randomized trial of treadmill walking with body weight support to establish walking in subacute stroke: the MOBILISE trial. Stroke. 2010;41(6):1237-1242. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.569483
Cao J, Xie SQ, Das R. Control strategies for effective robot assisted gait rehabilitation: the state of art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys 2014;36:1555-66.
Demir, S. Ö. Omurilik Yaralanmalı Hastalarda Robot Yardımlı Yürüme Eğitimi. Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation/Turkiye Fiziksel Tip ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi, 2015, 61.
Onat Ş, Şule. C. S, Orhan A. Robotik Rehabilitasyon Kullanma Kriterleri Biraz Daha Genişletilmeli mi?. Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Sciences/Fiziksel Tup ve Rehabilitasyon Bilimleri Dergisi, 2019, 22.1.
Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011;377(9778):1693-1702. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5
Nichols-Larsen DS, Clark PC, Zeringue A. Factors influencing stroke survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke 2005;36:1480-4
Roberts L, Counsell C. Assessment of clinical outcomes in acute stroke trials. Stroke 1998;29:986-91
Chang WH, Kim YH. Robot-assisted Therapy in Stroke Rehabilitation. J Stroke.2013;15(3):174-81
Wagenaar, R., Meijer, O., Kuik, D. The functional recovery of stroke: a comparison between neurodevelopmental treatment and the Brunnstrom method. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, (1990), 22(1), 1-8
Riener R, Lünenburger L, Jezernik S. Patient-cooperative strategies for robot-aided treadmill training: First experimental results. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005;13(3):380–94
Colombo G, Joerg M, Schreier R. Treadmill training of paraplegic patients using a robotic orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000;37(6):693–700.
Turner DL, Ramos-Murguialday A, Birbaumer N. Neurophysiology of robot-mediated training and therapy: a perspective for future use in clinical populations. Front Neurol 2013;4:184
Sergi F, Krebs HI, Groissier B. Predicting efficacy of robot-aided rehabilitation in chronic stroke patients using an MRI robotic device. Conf Proc IEEEb Eng Med Biol Soc 2011;2011:7470-3.
Hesse S. Treadmill training with partial body weight support after stroke: a review. NeuroRehabilitation. 2008; 23(1):55–65
Hsueh I.-P., Wang C.-H., Sheu C.-F. Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke. Stroke. 2003;34(7):1741–1745. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000075295.45185.D4
Horstman A. M., Gerrits K. H., Beltman M. Intrinsic Properties of the Knee Extensor Muscles After Subacute Stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2010;91(1):123–128. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.09.008
Jorgensen H. S., Nakayama H., Raaschou H. O. Recovery of walking function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen stroke study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1995;76(1):27–32. doi: 10.1016/S0003- 9993(95)80038-7
Hidler JM, Wall AE. Alterations in muscle activation patterns during robotic-assisted walking. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;20(2):184-193. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.09.016
Mehrholz J, Thomas S, Kugler J. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;10(10):CD006185. Published 2020 Oct 22. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub5
Tedla JS, Dixit S, Gular K. Robotic-Assisted Gait Training Effect on Function and Gait Speed in Subacute and Chronic Stroke Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Eur Neurol. 2019;81(3-4):103-111. doi:10.1159/000500747
Nizamis K, Athanasiou A, Almpani S. Converging Robotic Technologies in Targeted Neural Rehabilitation: A Review of Emerging Solutions and Challenges. Sensors (Basel). 2021;21(6):2084. Published 2021 Mar 16. doi:10.3390/s21062084
Schwartz I, Sajin A, Fisher I. The effectiveness of locomotor therapy using robotic-assisted gait training in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. PM R. 2009;1(6):516-523. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2009.03.009
