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
. 2022;51(4):541-558.
doi: 10.3233/NRE-220149.

Effects of robotic upper limb treatment after stroke on cognitive patterns: A systematic review

Federica Bressi  1 , Laura Cricenti  1 , Benedetta Campagnola  1 , Marco Bravi  1 , Sandra Miccinilli  1 , Fabio Santacaterina  1 , Silvia Sterzi  1 , Sofia Straudi  2 , Michela Agostini  3 , Matteo Paci  4 , Emanuela Casanova  5 , Dario Marino  6 , Giuseppe La Rosa  7 , Daniele Giansanti  8 , Luca Perrero  9 , Alberto Battistini  5 , Serena Filoni  10 , Monica Sicari  11 , Salvatore Petrozzino  11 , Claudio Marcello Solaro  12 , Stefano Gargano  13 , Paolo Benanti  14 , Paolo Boldrini  15 , Donatella Bonaiuti  16 , Enrico Castelli  17 , Francesco Draicchio  18 , Vincenzo Falabella  19 , Silvia Galeri  20 , Francesca Gimigliano  21 , Mauro Grigioni  8 , Stefano Mazzoleni  22 , Stefano Mazzon  23 , Franco Molteni  24 , Maurizio Petrarca  25 , Alessandro Picelli  26 , Federico Posteraro  27 , Michele Senatore  28 , Giuseppe Turchetti  29 , Giovanni Morone  30 , Marco Gallotti  31 , Marco Germanotta  31 , Irene Aprile  31 ; Working Group Upper Limb “CICERONE” Italian Consensus Conference On Robotic In Neurorehabilitation
Affiliations

Effects of robotic upper limb treatment after stroke on cognitive patterns: A systematic review

Federica Bressi et al. NeuroRehabilitation. 2022.

Abstract

Background: Robotic therapy (RT) has been internationally recognized for the motor rehabilitation of the upper limb. Although it seems that RT can stimulate and promote neuroplasticity, the effectiveness of robotics in restoring cognitive deficits has been considered only in a few recent studies.

Objective: To verify whether, in the current state of the literature, cognitive measures are used as inclusion or exclusion criteria and/or outcomes measures in robotic upper limb rehabilitation in stroke patients.

Methods: The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies eligible were identified through PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science from inception to March 2021.

Results: Eighty-one studies were considered in this systematic review. Seventy-three studies have at least a cognitive inclusion or exclusion criteria, while only seven studies assessed cognitive outcomes.

Conclusion: Despite the high presence of cognitive instruments used for inclusion/exclusion criteria their heterogeneity did not allow the identification of a guideline for the evaluation of patients in different stroke stages. Therefore, although the heterogeneity and the low percentage of studies that included cognitive outcomes, seemed that the latter were positively influenced by RT in post-stroke rehabilitation. Future larger RCTs are needed to outline which cognitive scales are most suitable and their cut-off, as well as what cognitive outcome measures to use in the various stages of post-stroke rehabilitation.

Keywords: Stroke; cognitive outcome; rehabilitation; robotic; robotic rehabilitation; systematic review; upper limb.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors disclose any financial or personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) this work. The authors have no affiliation with any organization with a financial interest, direct or indirect, in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (such as consultancies, employment, paid expert testimony, honoraria, speakers bureaus, retainers, stock options or ownership, patents or patent applications or travel grants) that may affect the conduct or reporting of the work submitted.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers and other sources.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abdullah H.A., Tarry C., Lambert C., Barreca S., &Allen B.O. (2011). Results of clinicians using a therapeutic robotic system inan inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 8(1). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adomavicienė A., Daunoravicienė K., Kubilius R., Varzaitytė L., & Raistenskis J. (2019). Influence of New Technologies on Post-Stroke Rehabilitation: A Comparison of Armeo Spring to the Kinect System. Medicina (Kaunas) [Internet]. [cited 2022 Mar 17];55(4). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30970655/ - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aisen M.L., Krebs H.I., Hogan N., McDowell F., &Volpe B.T. (1997). The effect of robot-assisted therapy and rehabilitative training on motor recovery following stroke. Arch Neurol [Internet]. [cited 2022 May 26];54(4), 443–6. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9109746/ - PubMed
    1. Alt Murphy M., Baniña M.C., &Levin M.F. (2017). Perceptuo-motor planning during functional reaching after stroke. Exp Brain Res [Internet]. [cited 2022 Mar 17];235(11), 3295–306. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28803362/ - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ambrosini E., Gasperini G., Zajc J., Immick N., Augsten A., Rossini M., et al. (2021). A Robotic System with EMG-Triggered Functional Eletrical Stimulation for Restoring Arm Functions inStroke Survivors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair [Internet]. [cited 2022 May 31];35(4), 334–45. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33655789/ - PubMed

Publication types