Home > Journals > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine > Past Issues > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2012 June;48(2) > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2012 June;48(2):319-24

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE

A Journal on Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation after Pathological Events


Official Journal of the Italian Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (SIMFER), European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM), European Union of Medical Specialists - Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Section (UEMS-PRM), Mediterranean Forum of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (MFPRM), Hellenic Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EEFIAP)
In association with International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ISPRM)
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,063


eTOC

 

REVIEWS  TRANSLATION FROM BASIC NEUROSCIENCE TO CLINICAL REHABILITATION - PART II


European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2012 June;48(2):319-24

language: English

Robotic technology and physical medicine and rehabilitation

Krebs H. I.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA


FULL TEXT  


In this opinion piece, I will revisit the basis for our belief that robotic manipulation is a valid approach to promote speedier and better recovery following a stroke and discuss some of the clinical evidence that led to the September 2010 guidelines for stroke care of the American Heart Association as well as the December 2010 guidelines of the Veterans Administration endorsing the use of robotic technology for the upper extremity (UE) but not for the lower extremity (LE) post-stroke rehabilitation effort.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail

hikrebs@mit.edu