Exoskeletons' design and usefulness evidence according to a systematic review of lower limb exoskeletons used for functional mobility by people with spinal cord injury

Abstract Purpose: Rehabilitation professionals have little information concerning lower limb exoskeletons for people with paraplegia. This study has four objectives: (1) Outline the characteristics of the exoskeletons’ design and their usefulness evidence as assistive mobility devices in the community for the Rewalk™, Mina, Indego®, Ekso™ (previously known as the eLEGS™) and Rex®; (2) document functional mobility outcomes of using these exoskeletons; (3) document secondary skills and benefits achieved with these exoskeletons, safety, user satisfaction and applicability in the community; and (4) establish level of scientific evidence of the selected studies. Method: A systematic review of the literature (January 2004 to April 2014) was done using the databases PubMed, CINAHL and Embase and groups of keywords associated with “exoskeleton”, “lower limb” and “paraplegia”. Results: Seven articles were selected. Exoskeleton use is effective for walking in a laboratory but there are no training protocols to modify identified outcomes over the term usage (ReWalk™: 3 months, Mina: 2 months and Indego®: 1 session). Levels of evidence of selected papers are low. Conclusions: The applicability and effectiveness of lower limb exoskeletons as assistive devices in the community have not been demonstrated. More research is needed on walking performance with these exoskeletons compared to other mobility devices and other training contexts in the community. Implications for rehabilitation Characteristics of the exoskeletons’ design and their usefulness evidence as assistive mobility devices in the community are addressed for the Rewalk™, Mina, Indego®, Ekso™ and Rex® ReWalk™, Indego® and Mina lower limb exoskeletons are effective for walking in a laboratory for individuals with complete lower-level SCI. The ReWalk™ has the best results for walking, with a maximum speed of 0.51 m/s after 45 sessions lasting 60 to 120 min; it is comparable to the average speed per day or per week in a manual wheelchair. The level of scientific evidence is low. Other studies are needed to provide more information about performance over the longer term when walking with an exoskeleton, compared to wheelchair mobility, the user’s usual locomotion, the use of different exoskeletons or the training context in which the exoskeleton is used.

[1]  Anthony J. Culyer Institut National d’excellence en Santé et en Services Sociaux , 2014 .

[2]  M. Fehlings,et al.  Incidence and Prevalence of Spinal Cord Injury in Canada: A National Perspective , 2012, Neuroepidemiology.

[3]  A. Esquenazi,et al.  The ReWalk Powered Exoskeleton to Restore Ambulatory Function to Individuals with Thoracic-Level Motor-Complete Spinal Cord Injury , 2012, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[4]  Scott Tanner,et al.  Update on Distance and Velocity Requirements for Community Ambulation , 2010, Journal of geriatric physical therapy.

[5]  P. Schwenkreis,et al.  Voluntary driven exoskeleton as a new tool for rehabilitation in chronic spinal cord injury: a pilot study. , 2014, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[6]  Aaron M. Dollar,et al.  Lower Extremity Exoskeletons and Active Orthoses: Challenges and State-of-the-Art , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[7]  M. Kolber,et al.  Shoulder pain in wheelchair users with tetraplegia and paraplegia. , 1999, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[8]  M H Granat,et al.  Objective assessment of mobility of the spinal cord injured in a free-living environment , 2008, Spinal Cord.

[9]  Jerry E Pratt,et al.  Design and evaluation of Mina: A robotic orthosis for paraplegics , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[10]  Mukul Talaty,et al.  Differentiating ability in users of the ReWalkTM powered exoskeleton: An analysis of walking kinematics , 2013, 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR).

[11]  Yoshiyuki Sankai,et al.  Power assist method based on Phase Sequence and muscle force condition for HAL , 2005, Adv. Robotics.

[12]  Spinal Cord Injury Facts and Figures at a Glance , 2014, The journal of spinal cord medicine.

[13]  M. Watson Refining the ten-metre walking test for use with neurologically impaired people , 1992 .

[14]  Anil K. Raj,et al.  Mina: A Sensorimotor Robotic Orthosis for Mobility Assistance , 2011, J. Robotics.

[15]  Michael Goldfarb,et al.  A Preliminary Assessment of Legged Mobility Provided by a Lower Limb Exoskeleton for Persons With Paraplegia , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[16]  D. Cardenas,et al.  Upper extremity pain after spinal cord injury , 1999, Spinal Cord.

[17]  A. Esquenazi,et al.  Safety and tolerance of the ReWalk™ exoskeleton suit for ambulation by people with complete spinal cord injury: A pilot study , 2012, The journal of spinal cord medicine.

[18]  王德伦 英语-翻译-Internet , 2000 .

[19]  Luc Noreau,et al.  Relationships between wheelchair skills, wheelchair mobility and level of injury in individuals with spinal cord injury , 2011, Spinal Cord.

[20]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[21]  Gong Chen,et al.  A review of lower extremity assistive robotic exoskeletons in rehabilitation therapy. , 2013, Critical reviews in biomedical engineering.