Table 2 Paediatric rehabilitation robots’ requirements and examples
From: Robotic devices for paediatric rehabilitation: a review of design features
Requirement | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
Target group | Range of ages and problem of the users | ChARMin covered an age range from 5–18 years old [99] |
Mechanical functionality | The device performance, including the controlling level of assistance, the functional workspace, smoothness of movement and robustness | McDaid designed a gait trainer that allows children to stretch their legs through the entire ROM and support body weight up to 80kg [40] |
Weight | Total unsupported or unpowered mass of the device in relation to the user’s body weight | Lerner developed a Bowden cable structure for an ankle exoskeleton with a weight of 1.85 kg and placed 65% of the total mass above the waist to minimise the metabolic cost of walking due to the device's weight [73] |
Therapeutic benefit | The type of exercise that the rehabilitation system should promote and how this will improve the user quality of life | The paediatric Anklebot provided intensive task-specific sensorimotor therapy to the ankle of children with motor disabilities to promote motor learning [75] |
Safety | The potential for the device to harm its user | IOTA device included a security stop button that immediately halts the servo motors [175] |
Comfort | The user can use the device without physical pain or discomfort | The P-LEG robot used 3D printed braces based on 3D scans of the child’s legs to improve the child's comfort [71] |
Reliability | The consistency of the device operation in normal operating conditions | Laubscher designed a gait guidance controller to guide the motion of the patient's legs to follow healthy gait patterns to avoid unnatural gait patterns [176] |
Operability | The device is easy to control and adaptable to changes in the user’s ability and sizes | ATLAS exoskeleton used a slide and tubular regulation size system to adapt to the fast growth of the patients at all stages [177] |
Product appeal | User satisfaction with the design, like fit, appearance, and sound of the device | One of the main requirements for PEXO was an appealing design, so the kidPexo version resembles a crocodile [26] |
Quality of construction | Typical use and care should cause no damage, distortion, or hinder the expected useful lifetime of the device | PEXO device did not have electronics in the hand module, making the device water and dustproof [26] |
Social acceptability | Matches user needs for discretion or attention to avoid stigmatisation | Weightman selected the handgrip of his robot through a questionnaire with different aspects like shape, style, feel, and colour [69] |
Motivation | Encompass any aspect of the device considered to motivate the child | ChARMin used an Audio-visual interface with various game-based virtual reality scenarios to motivate the child for active participation [57] |
Cost | The financial burden of the initial purchase and ongoing costs of the device | Volpini developed a low-cost robotic gait trainer to be used in developing countries [87] |
Easy to maintain/repair | The ease of keeping the device fully operational, including when damaged | P-Legs' brace 3D print fabrication method made it easy to get new braces as the children grow [71] |
Portability | The possibility of the device to be transported between locations | Cleary developed a smaller version of Pedbot that can be used at home [153] |