1. Upper Extremity Exerciser - P09006
Project Customer:
Project Team
(From Left to Right):
Jamie Rothfuss (IE)
Omar Ghani (ME)
Matthew Oelkers (ME)
Andrew Krivonak (ME)
Wesley Adam (IE)
Dwight Cooke (ME)
Project Overview: Following a stroke, it is not uncommon for victims to lose significant amounts of mobility and range of motion in their upper extremities. Should some range of motion be restored, a victim’s arm will typically feel heavy and difficult to operate. Often times this will force victims to move their upper body, specifically their upper extremities, in ways that may cause further damage to the muscles that are involved in upper limb control. The proper method for rehabilitation is to constrain motion of the upper extremities to only that which is considered safe to perform and to encourage as much use as possible. That is where is the Upper Extremity Exerciser comes into play:
Design Process
Customer Needs
Needs to be adjustable to fit patients ranging in size from a 5th percentile female to a 95th percentile male.
Needs to completely attach to a patient
Needs to be light weight and portable for easy transport.
Needs to be durable enough to withstand continuous use and cleaning.
Needs to limit motion to only that in the sagittal plane (the plane that cuts the body in half vertically).
Needs to provide assistance as a patient raises their arm forward and above their shoulder.
Needs to provide resistance as the patient lowers their arm to a resting position at the side of their body.
Needs to assist patient in the extension of their elbow
Spring Subsystem: Adjustability, Assistance, Resistance, Durability, Extension, Sagittal Plane:
The spring subsystem has an adjustable assistive/resistive force output to accommodate the abilities of various patients. It also has adjustability features necessary to fit patients ranging in size from a 5th percentile female to a 95th percentile male. The aluminum alloy is used in this subsystem is corrosion resistant and durable for repeated use. The spring subsystem restricts motion outside the sagittal plane.
Flexed View
Upper Arm Cuff: Adjustability, Attachment, and Light Weight:
The molded upper arm cuff ergonomically satisfies the arm support system’s rigid attachment to the body all while weighing less than one pound. It is adjustable to fit arm circumferences ranging in size from the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile male.
Arm Subsystem: Adjustability, Attachment, Resistance, Extension:
The arm subsystem was developed using an elbow splint donated by EMPI. The modified splint assists extension at the elbow to 165°. The attachment features and assistive/resistive force are fully adjustable.
Belt Subsystem: Adjustability, Portability, and Attachment:
The belt subsystem provides the main point of attachment to the body. The belt circumference and lateral tubing are adjustable to fit the waist and back sizes of patients ranging in size from the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile male. Portability is ensured by the belts’ ability to be folded.
Extended View
Results and Conclusion
Device achieves desired range of motion (5° to 120°)
Device applies required assistive and resistive forces (variable up to 9.5 lbs)
Adjustable for a population range of 95th percentile male to 5th percentile female
Light weight (5 lbs), portable, and compact (24” x 10.5” x 6”)
Produced at 60% under allotted budget
Suggestions
Attaching the device to a rigid structure instead of the patients’ body
Design a shoulder harness to fully limit a patients’ ability to shrug
Design additional device features to ensure adjustability for both the left and right arm
Work closely with a spring manufacturer to help fabricate a custom spring with a unique force output profile
Acknowledgements:
Dr. Matthew Marshall
Dr. Elizabeth DeBartolo
Ryan Hellems
J.J. Mowder-Tinney
Dave Hathaway
Rob Kraynik
Project Sponsored By:
Project Funded By:
Donations Made By:
Brinkman Manufacturing Laboratory
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award No. BES Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation