Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Feb 17;15(1):9.
doi: 10.1186/s12984-018-0350-6.

Soft robotic devices for hand rehabilitation and assistance: a narrative review

Affiliations
Review

Soft robotic devices for hand rehabilitation and assistance: a narrative review

Chia-Ye Chu et al. J Neuroeng Rehabil. .

Abstract

Introduction: The debilitating effects on hand function from a number of a neurologic disorders has given rise to the development of rehabilitative robotic devices aimed at restoring hand function in these patients. To combat the shortcomings of previous traditional robotics, soft robotics are rapidly emerging as an alternative due to their inherent safety, less complex designs, and increased potential for portability and efficacy. While several groups have begun designing devices, there are few devices that have progressed enough to provide clinical evidence of their design's therapeutic abilities. Therefore, a global review of devices that have been previously attempted could facilitate the development of new and improved devices in the next step towards obtaining clinical proof of the rehabilitative effects of soft robotics in hand dysfunction.

Methods: A literature search was performed in SportDiscus, Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles related to the design of soft robotic devices for hand rehabilitation. A framework of the key design elements of the devices was developed to ease the comparison of the various approaches to building them. This framework includes an analysis of the trends in portability, safety features, user intent detection methods, actuation systems, total DOF, number of independent actuators, device weight, evaluation metrics, and modes of rehabilitation.

Results: In this study, a total of 62 articles representing 44 unique devices were identified and summarized according to the framework we developed to compare different design aspects. By far, the most common type of device was that which used a pneumatic actuator to guide finger flexion/extension. However, the remainder of our framework elements yielded more heterogeneous results. Consequently, those results are summarized and the advantages and disadvantages of many design choices as well as their rationales were highlighted.

Conclusion: The past 3 years has seen a rapid increase in the development of soft robotic devices for hand rehabilitative applications. These mostly preclinical research prototypes display a wide range of technical solutions which have been highlighted in the framework developed in this analysis. More work needs to be done in actuator design, safety, and implementation in order for these devices to progress to clinical trials. It is our goal that this review will guide future developers through the various design considerations in order to develop better devices for patients with hand impairments.

Keywords: Hand; Rehabilitation; Soft robotics; Wearable robots.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare they that have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Soft robotic major components schematic
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Literature search process and results
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Distribution of actuator types
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Distribution of feedback modalities
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Methods of detection along motor pathway [81]
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Distribution of devices with varying total DOF
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Average weight of different types of devices

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Protection. Atlanta. 2015. https://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/NHIS/SHS/2015_SHS_Table_A.... Accessed 28 Nov 2017.
    1. Bütefisch C, Hummelsheim H, Denzler P, Mauritz KH. Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand. J Neurol Sci. 1995;130:59–68. doi: 10.1016/0022-510X(95)00003-K. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jeanne C, Gordon A. Development of hand–arm bimanual intensive training (HABIT) for improving bimanual coordination in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006; 10.1017/S0012162206002039. - PubMed
    1. Comelia C, Stebbins G, Brown-Toms N, Goetz C. Physical therapy and Parkinson’s disease a controlled clinical trial. Neurology. 1994; 10.1212/WNL.44.3_Part_1.376. - PubMed
    1. Freeman J, Langdon DW, Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 1997; 10.1002/ana.410420216. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources