Purpose: This study examined the recognition of rehabilitative robots for treatment in physical therapists. Methods: This study surveyed 100 physical therapists in Seoul and Gyeonggi-do using Google Form, an online survey tool. The questionnaire consisted of 21 questions, including eight questions on the general characteristics, 13 questions on the recognition of rehabilitative robots. Results: The general characteristics of the physical therapists showed differences and influences on recognition of rehabilitative robots, and there were statistically significant differences. There were significant differences in the recognition of rehabilitation robots according to general characteristics in gender, age, education degree, type of hospital, average weekly working time, and treatment field. Multiple regression analysis found that gender and the type of hospital influenced the recognition of rehabilitation robots. Conclusion Physical therapists showed differences in recognition of rehabilitative robots according to their general characteristics, and gender and the type of hospital influence the recognition of rehabilitation robots. Sufficient systematic education programs should be provided, and physical therapists require policy adjustments to increase their accessibility to rehabilitation robots through continuing education.

Purpose: This study examined the recognition of rehabilitative robots for treatment in physical therapists. Methods: This study surveyed 100 physical therapists in Seoul and Gyeonggi-do using Google Form, an online survey tool. The questionnaire consisted of 21 questions, including eight questions on the general characteristics, 13 questions on the recognition of rehabilitative robots. Results: The general characteristics of the physical therapists showed differences and influences on recognition of rehabilitative robots, and there were statistically significant differences. There were significant differences in the recognition of rehabilitation robots according to general characteristics in gender, age, education degree, type of hospital, average weekly working time, and treatment field. Multiple regression analysis found that gender and the type of hospital influenced the recognition of rehabilitation robots. Conclusion Physical therapists showed differences in recognition of rehabilitative robots according to their general characteristics, and gender and the type of hospital influence the recognition of rehabilitation robots. Sufficient systematic education programs should be provided, and physical therapists require policy adjustments to increase their accessibility to rehabilitation robots through continuing education.

BACKGROUND: Propofol has been the most widely used IV adjuvant during Monitored anesthesia care (MAC), even though it lacksanalgesic properties. This study was designed to compare sedation quality, side effects, and recovery profiles of propofol alone (group P), propofol-fentanyl (group PF) and propofol-ketamine (group PK) using PCS for breast biopsy procedures using local anesthesia. METHODS: Anxiety VAS, pain VAS and digit symbol substitution test (DSST) were measured in 60 excision breast biopsy patients with local anesthesia. Vital signs, respiratory (SpO2, RR, and ETCO2) variables, BIS, and OAA/S scores were recorded. Perioperative side effects (e. g., pain on injection, excessive sedation [OAA/S < 4], hypoventilation [ventilatory frequency 8 bpm], hypotension, dizziness, unpleasant feeling, Nausea) were also noted. RESULTS: There were no differences among the three PCS groups with respect to demographic data (Table 1). A/D ratio in PK group had a significant increase over P group. The incidence of excessive sedation and dizziness were significantly more frequent in the PK group patients (P < 0.05)(Table 1, 2). OAA/S scores were significantly decreased in the PK group during near the end of surgery, whereas BIS scores were only at the end of surgery (P < 0.05)(Fig. 1, 2). During 15 min after arrival at recovery room, significantly less patients in the PK group gave correct responses on the DSST than other groups (P < 0.05)(Fig. 2, 3). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to past studies of ketamine as an alternative to opioid adjuncts during propofol PCS, it has no more advantage than supplemental fentanyl in terms of sedation level and side effects.
Anesthesia ; Anesthesia, Local ; Anxiety ; Biopsy ; Breast ; Dizziness ; Fentanyl ; Humans ; Hypotension ; Hypoventilation ; Incidence ; Ketamine ; Propofol* ; Recovery Room ; Vital Signs