Shoulder Musculoskeletal Disorder Rehabilitation Using a Robotic Device Based on Electromyography (EMG) Biofeedback: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: While shoulder injuries represent the musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) most encountered in physical therapy, there is no consensus on their management. In attempts to provide standardized and personalized treatment, a robotic-assisted device combined with EMG biofeedback specifically dedicated to shoulder MSDs was developed. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of an 8-week rehabilitation program (3 sessions a week) using a robotic-assisted device combined with EMG biofeedback (RA-EMG group) in comparison with a conventional program (CONV group) in patients presenting with shoulder MSDs. Materials and Methods: This study is a retrospective cohort study including data from 2010 to 2013 on patients initially involved in a physical rehabilitation program in a private clinic in Chicoutimi (Canada) for shoulder MSDs. Shoulder flexion strength and range of motion were collected before and after the rehabilitation program. Forty-four patients participated in a conventional program using dumbbells (CONV group), while 73 completed a program on a robot-assisted device with EMG and visual biofeedback (RA-EMG group); both programs consisted of two sets of 20 repetitions at 60% of maximal capacity. Results: We showed that the RA-EMG had significantly greater benefits than the CONV group for shoulder flexion strength (4.45 [2.6;6.15] kg vs. 2.3 [0.90;4.775] kg, U = 761, p = 0.013) and for normalized strength (77.5 [51.3;119.1] % vs. 39.1 [16.6;89.2] %, U = 755, p = 0.016). In addition, the RA-EMG group showed a trend to greater absolute gain of ROM than the CONV group (10.0 [0;24.3] degrees vs. 5.5 [0;12.0] degrees, U = 1931, p = 0.067), and a greater benefit in normalized ROM was observed for the RA-EMG (7.4. [0;17.7] %) than the CONV group (4.6 [0;10.8], U = 1907, p = 0.046). Conclusions: The current retrospective cohort study showed that a specific and tailored 8-week rehabilitation program with constant effort by automatic adjustment of the level of resistance by EMG feedback induced greater benefits for shoulder flexion strength and a trend to improve range of motion compared to conventional rehabilitation in patients with shoulder MSDs. Future research should be pursued to determine the added potential of this approach for abduction and external rotation with a randomized controlled design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".