Soft robotic devices for hand rehabilitation and assistance: a narrative review.
Chia-Ye Chu, Rita M Patterson
PMID 29454392WHAT IT FOUND
Of 44 soft robotic hand devices, 20 were portable, 12 had clear safety mechanisms, and 13 detected user intent.
Many are early prototypes, and there is little clinical evidence for any particular design.
Key findings
01The search identified 62 articles describing 44 unique soft robotic hand devices.
02Twenty of 44 devices were portable, 12 had clear safety mechanisms, 13 detected user intent, and 18 of 44 used 15 degrees of freedom.
03The review states there is little clinical evidence to support any particular soft robotic hand device design.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a narrative review, not a clinical trial or systematic review, so it does not test whether a device helps patients. The authors say many devices are early prototypes and few have been tested on human subjects. The review excluded devices with rigid components, other joints, and prosthetics, so it does not describe all hand robots. Many device details were not reported, such as weights, safety mechanisms, and user intent detection. The search was limited to English articles accessible to the authors.
Declared interests
Funding was provided by the Directorate for Engineering. The supplied text does not report author conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this review as evidence that soft robotic hand devices improve hand rehabilitation. The paper reports device design features and states that there is little clinical evidence for any particular design.