Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Scoping review maps rehabilitation protocols that use robotics and VR in neurological and orthopaedic conditions, suggesting improved care integration.
Robotics and virtual reality (VR) have shifted physiotherapy away from traditional hands-on treatment toward more technologically driven rehabilitation. These tools, ranging from exoskeletons and gait trainers to immersive VR environments, introduced a new way of approaching neuro-muscular recovery. Robotic systems provided precise movement data and real-time feedback, making sessions more personalised and consistent. VR and gamification placed patients in interactive environments that improved engagement and helped reduce pain perception. Together, these technologies offered a more dynamic approach to rehabilitation while also enabling better progress tracking for both clinicians and patients. However, this shift was not without its challenges. Much of the research surrounding these technologies focused on device efficacy rather than providing workable clinical protocols. This left clinicians without clear guidance, contributing to apprehension around adoption. The absence of structured training programmes and regulatory frameworks only added to this uncertainty, making it difficult to implement these systems alongside existing physiotherapy practice. This scoping review aimed to address these gaps by mapping existing rehabilitation protocols that incorporated robotic and VR technologies. Session frequency and duration, patient selection criteria, and integration with conventional therapies were all examined. The theoretical foundations of each protocol were considered alongside reported clinical outcomes. The overall aim was to support a smoother transition toward a hybrid model of care, one that combines the precision of technology with the clinical expertise of physiotherapists, ultimately improving both functional outcomes and patient engagement in rehabilitation settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oberoi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: