Search

Biomedical technologies are having an increasingly central role in the modern medicine. In fact they are at the root of the diagnosis and follow up of pathologies giving to the clinicians quantitative outcomes necessary on the choice of the right therapy. In this paper we will focus on biomedical technologies used in the context of gait analysis describing the main ones used in the clinical practice about pathologies of neurologic, orthopedic and rheumatic interest and underlining their importance in the clinical setting. The main systems for gait analysis will be presented in this article: system with passive markers, stereophotogrammetric system, force and pressure platforms, surface electromyography system, system based on inertial measurement units underling the importance of each in investigating a different aspect of movement and how integrating all of them we can have a depth and whole gait analysis. The main gait analysis protocols will be presented too. Finally, advantages and disadvantages about gait analysis will be analyzed. In conclusion, the complexity of the described biomedical technologies for gait analysis underlines the importance of the presence of an expert technician that can help the clinician to interpret and to process acquired signals during the gait analysis.

Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES), is a tecnique that uses low-energy electrical pulses to artificially generate muscle contractions, in individuals with damages regarding the central nervous system. The application of FES in clinical environment involves both patients care and rehabilitation. Aim of this work is to introduce a clinical FES protocol for upper limbs rehabilitation, in order to assist and train the execution of complex movement, such as flexion- extension of wrist and fingers and palmar prehension. The new FES protocol has been tested on a cohort of five subjects with different upper limb neuromotor deficits, during their rehabilitation. The benefits deriving from the application of the new FES protocol have been evaluated by comparing specific quantitative electromyographic parameters assessed before and after the treatment. Results show effective improvements in performances of 4 patients out of 5.