Technical and Medical Problems Concerning Wider Use of Neuroprostheses in Patients with Neurologic Disorders
Keywords
neurorehabilitation, care, patient with neurologic disorder, neuroprosthesis, brain-computer interface, BCIAbstract
Nervous system disorders may seriously impair motor, sensory or cognitive functions. Present neurorehabilitation in selected cases can cause significant functional recovery e.g. in the area of locomotor pattern generation and balance, but in the most severe cases this recovery still remains incomplete. Use of neuroprostheses broadens possibilities of rehabilitation and care. Neuroprostheses are electronic devices substituting lost sensory, motor or cognitive functions. They significantly help to restore or replace functions lost as a result of neural damage. Clinical used neuroprostheses proved to be effective in achieving a greater patients’ independence in daily activities.
Further development of neuroprostheses need for increased involvement of medical staff in the area of clinical research on clear and safe medical procedures. This progress can make another breakthrough in the therapy, rehabilitation and care of patients with nervous system deficits. (PNN 2012;1(3):119-123)
References
Mikołajewska E., Mikołajewski D. Neuroprostheses for increasing disabled patients’ mobility and control. Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2012;21(2):263-272.
Prochazka A., Mushahwar V.K., McCreery D.B. Neural prostheses. Journal of Physiology. 2001;533(Pt 1):99-109.
Farbod Kia S., Ĺstrand E., Ibos G., Ben Hamed S. Readout of the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of a stimulus from un-experienced neuronal activities: towards cognitive neuroprostheses. Journal of Physiology (Paris). 2011;105(1-3):115-122.
Dutta A., Kobetic R., Triolo R.J. An objective method for selecting command sources for myoelectrically triggered lower-limb neuroprostheses. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 2011;48(8):935-948.
Ethier C., Oby E.R., Bauman M.J., Miller L.E. Restoration of grasp following paralysis through brain-controlled stimulation of muscles. Nature. 2012;485(7398):368-371.
Rupp R., Gerner H.J. Neuroprosthetics of the upper extremity - clinical application in spinal cord injury and challenges for the future. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplementum. 2007;97(Pt 1):419-426.
Triolo R.J., Bailey S.N., Miller M.E., et al. Longitudinal performance of a surgically implanted neuroprosthesis for lower-extremity exercise, standing, and transfers after spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2012;93(5):896-904.
Judy J.W. Neural interfaces for upper-limb prosthesis control: opportunities to improve long-term reliability. IEEE Pulse. 2012;3(2):57-60.
van Swigchem R., Weerdesteyn V., van Duijnhoven H.J., den Boer J., Beems T., Geurts A.C. Near-normal gait pattern with peroneal electrical stimulation as a neuroprosthesis in the chronic phase of stroke: a case report. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2011;92(2):320-324.
Ambrosini E., Ferrante S., Tibiletti M., Schauer T., Klauer C., Ferrigno G., Pedrocchi A. An EMGcontrolled neuroprosthesis for daily upper limb support: a preliminary study. Conference Proceedings of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 2011;2011:4259-62.
Warvick K. I, cyborg. University of Illinois Press, Champaign 2004.
Saha S., Chhatbar P. The future of implantable neuroprosthetic devices: ethical considerations. Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants. 2009;19(2):123-137.
Voge Ch.M., Stegemann J.P. Carbon nanotubes in neural interfacing applications. Journal of Neural Engineering. 2011;8(2):011001.
van den Brand R., Heutschi J., Barraud Q., et al. Restoring voluntary control of locomotion after paralyzing spinal cord injury. Science. 2012;336(6085):1182-1185.
Dominici N., Keller U., Vallery H., et al. Versatile robotic interface to evaluate, enable and train locomotion and balance after neuromotor disorders. Nature Medicine. 2012; doi:10.1038/nm.2845.
Creasey G.H, Kilgore K.L., Brown-Triolo D.L., Dahlberg J.E., Peckham P.H., Keith M.W. Reduction of costs of disability using neuroprostheses. Assistive Technology. 2000;12(1):67-75.
Creasey G.H., Dahlberg J.E. Economic consequences of an implanted neuroprosthesis for bladder and bowel management. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2001;82(11):1520-1525.
Kowalczewski J., Prochazka A. Technology improves upper extremity rehabilitation. Progress in Brain Research. 2011;192:147-59.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 225
Number of citations: 0