1 / 6

Conclusions

Conclusions. David Reinkensmeyer Paolo Bonato Michael Boninger Leighton Chan Rachel Cowan Mary Rodgers BJ Fregly. Thank you . Cisanello Hospital Smartex and University of Pisa Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Auxilim Vitae Volterra University of Genoa Rizzoli Institute

tori
Download Presentation

Conclusions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Conclusions David Reinkensmeyer Paolo Bonato Michael Boninger Leighton Chan Rachel Cowan Mary Rodgers BJ Fregly

  2. Thank you • Cisanello Hospital • Smartex and University of Pisa • ScuolaSuperioreSant’Anna • Auxilim Vitae Volterra • University of Genoa • Rizzoli Institute • University of Bologna • ETH Zurich • ZAR and Balgrist Hospital • Hocoma AG • University of Twente • Roessingh Rehabilitation and Development • MIRA • Baat Medical • Demcon Advanced Mechatronics • Xsens Technologies • Delft University of Technology • Instituto de Automatica Industrial, Madrid • U. Paris Descartes, GarchesHoptial • MounirMokhtari, Institute Telecom • University of Aalborg • Laboratoire de Biomecanique, Paris Arts and Metiers • Institut des SystèmesIntelligents et de Robotique • Imperial College London • Cambridge University • TRIL • Fraunhofer Institute, Berlin • Charite Hospital, Berlin

  3. Grand Challenges • Integrating neuroscience and theory to inform • Therapeutic technology innovation • Combinations of mobility technology with biologics • Clinically useful, predictive, wholistic human models • Transparent technology • reliable unobtrusive sensors and exoskeletons • Training the next generation of researchers • Multidisciplinary interactive team players • Meaningfully involvement of individuals with mobility impairment at all roles and stages • Technology for resource poor environments • A worry free European vacation

  4. WTEC Study = Intense Mobility Required

  5. Imagine WTEC Mobility Study 2030 6 of 8 panelists have mobility impairments – CP, SCI, MS, CVA, TBI, amputation Recovery from CVA nearly complete due to combined approaches Naturalistic prosthetics Modes of transportation will be adapted Changing demographics of age will have driven technological adaptations, including to public transportation, that help maintain quality of life Mobility impairments won’t necessary mean mobility disability “Second skin” sensors, soft exoskeletons; -continuous data from people undergoing interventions, driving adjustments in the intervention - health monitoring – are you in danger Personalized medicine – genetic risk factors and individualized neuroplasticity parameters assessed; leading to reducing impairment through better treatment Improved Skype – with haptic feedback and advanced telepresence Routine, seamless interface with the CNS Shared control Un-retrofitable architecture drives personalized assistive devices Regeneration – instead of knee or hip surgery Technology targeted to specific events in a person daily life – e.g.getting in and out bed, thermo-regulation, blood pressure control; low-haningfruite

  6. Imagine WTEC Mobility Study 2030 What has actually changed in the past 20 years in mobility technology? robotic rehab? lifelike prosthetic limbs? ADA was passed in 1990; fewer environmental accomodations in Europe wheelchairs lighter, more robust, better appearance joint replacements are a success story Bottleneck – who pays for the new, better, but more expensive technology or medical treatment?

More Related