PDF herunterladen
neuroreha 2018; 10(03): 119-126
DOI: 10.1055/a-0641-0397
Schwerpunkt
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Roboterunterstützte Lokomotionstherapie bei Kindern in der Neuroreha

Tabea Aurich-Schuler
,
Hubertus van Hedel
,
Rob Labruyère
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
14. September 2018 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Besonderheit in der Neurorehabilitation bei Kindern ist, dass deren komplexer neurologischer Zustand unter anderem durch den Entwicklungsstatus, die kognitiven Fähigkeiten, die Motivation, das Alter (Pubertätsübergang) und sonstige Verhaltensauffälligkeiten beeinflusst werden kann. Wie die Lokomotionstherapie entsprechend angepasst wird, beschreibt der folgende Beitrag.

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Arpino C, Vescio MF, De Luca A. et al. Efficacy of intensive versus nonintensive physiotherapy in children with cerebral palsy: A meta-analysis. Int J Rehabil Res 2010; 33: 165-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Aurich-Schuler T, Grob F, Van Hedel H JA. et al. Can Lokomat therapy with children and adolescents be improved? An adaptive clinical pilot trial comparing Guidance force, Path control, and FreeD. J Neuroeng Rehabil J of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 2017; 14: 1-14
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Bayon C, Raya R, Lerma Lara S. et al. Robotic therapies for children with cerebral palsy: A systematic review. Transl Biomedicine 2016; 7
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Berker AN, Yalçın MS. Cerebral palsy: Orthopedic aspects and rehabilitation. Pediatr Clin North Am 2008; 55: 1209-1225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chad KE, Bailey DA, McKay HA. et al. The effect of a weight-bearing physical activity program on bone mineral content and estimated volumetric density in children with spastic cerebral palsy. J Pediatr 1999; 135: 115-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chiarello LA, Palisano RJ, Maggs JM. et al. Family priorities for activity and participation of children and youth with cerebral palsy. Phys Ther 2010; 90: 1254-1264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Clearfield MW. Learning to walk changes infants’ social interactions. Infant Behav Dev 2011; 34: 15-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Damiano D, Abel M, Romness M. et al. Comparing functional profiles of children with hemiplegic and diplegic cerebral palsy in GMFCS Levels I and II: Are separate classifications needed?. Dev Med Child Neurol 2006; 48: 797-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Damiano DL, Alter KE, Chambers H. New clinical and research trends in lower extremity management for ambulatory children with cerebral palsy. Phys Med Rehabil Clin NA 2009; 20: 469-491
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Dobkin BH, Duncan PW. Should body weight-supported treadmill training and robotic-assistive steppers for locomotor training trot back to the starting gate?. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26: 308-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fowler EG, Staudt LA, Greenberg MB. et al. Selective Control Assessment of the Lower Extremity (SCALE): Development, validation, and interrater reliability of a clinical tool for patients with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2009; 51: 607-614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gibson BE, Teachman G, Wright V. et al. Children’s and parents’ beliefs regarding the value of walking: Rehabilitation implications for children with cerebral palsy. Child Care Health Dev 2012; 38: 61-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gordon AM. To constrain or not to constrain, and other stories of intensive upper extremity training for children with unilateral cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2011; 53: 56-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Holden MK, Ph D. Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation. Review Motor Rehabilitation 2005; 8
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Labruyère R, Gerber CN, Birrer-Brütsch K. et al. Requirements for and impact of a serious game for neuro-pediatric robot-assisted gait training. Res Dev Disabil 2013; 34: 3906-3915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Larkin D, Summers J. Implications of movement difficulties for social interaction, physical activity, play ans sports. In: Dewey D, Tupper D. eds. Developmental Motor Disorders. A Neuropsychological Perspective. New York: The Guilford Press; 2004: 443-460
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Majnemer A, Shevell M, Law M. et al. Level of motivation in mastering challenging tasks in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2010; 52: 1120-1126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 O’Shea TM. Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of cerebral palsy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2008; 51: 816-828
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Walter S. et al. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1997; 39: 214-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Phelan SK, Gibson BE, Wright FV. What is it like to walk with the help of a robot? Children’s perspectives on robotic gait training technology. Disabil Rehabil Informa UK Ltd 2015; 8288: 1-10
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Pountney T, Mandy A, Green E. et al. Management of hip dislocation with postural management. Child Care Health Dev 2002; 28: 179-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Salem Y, Godwin EM. Effects of task-oriented training on mobility function in children with cerebral palsy. NeuroRehabilitation 2009; 24: 307-313
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Schuler T, Brütsch K, Müller R. et al. Virtual realities as motivational tools for robotic assisted gait training in children: A surface electromyography study. NeuroRehabilitation 2011; 28: 401-411
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 van Hedel HJA, Lieber J, Ricklin S, Meyer-Heim AD. Die praktische Anwendung von Exergames und virtueller Realität in der pädiatrischen Rehabilitation. neuroreha 2017; 9: 35-40
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 25 World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Clin Rev Educ. 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar