Review and classification of human gait training and rehabilitation devices

The number of people with reduced mobility capabilities increases every year. This reduction arises mainly due to spinal cord injuries; strokes which caused hemiparesis; or due to an advanced age. This decrease in mobility is a factor that influences both their quality of life and their dependence of others in daily life. Thus, it becomes necessary to find means and tools to prevent, compensate, improve or help to restore and increase the mobility of the affected people. The main expectation is that such means help to recover or ameliorate their independence in their daily life. Traditional training employs a treadmill with a support-weight system. This training is based on the principle of repetition of all the physical movements of a gait and has shown to produce good results in terms of rehabilitation of patients. However, this therapy requires two or more therapists in assisting patients during walking, to hold and adjust the patient’s lower limbs to correctly produce the desired gait. Thus, it requires a substantial commitment and effort of the therapists [1], and it is very expensive in terms of human resources. This leads to a boost on the population healthcare and assistive services demand and, thus an increase in the need for care givers. Assistive mobility robotic devices for gait training of disabled patients in treadmills and in the ground are one successful alternative. Other alternatives include devices that allow a broader training of patients, in different ground types, and the repetition of gait movements in uphill, downhill and trip. This paper reviews state of the art training gait devices focusing on passive and active devices. Passive devices rely on the principle of Gravity-Balancing in that they try to reduce or eliminate the effects of gravity during walking. Active devices are usually classified according to three different approaches: (i) treadmillexoskeleton based devices, (ii) robotic manipulators generating different types of gait patterns, and (iii) mobilite devices. In this review, several examples of current devices are presented.

[1]  David J. Reinkensmeyer,et al.  A robotic device for measuring and controlling pelvic motion during locomotor rehabilitation , 2003, Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37439).

[2]  S. Hesse,et al.  Gait rehabilitation machines based on programmable footplates , 2007, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[3]  Daniel P. Ferris,et al.  An ankle-foot orthosis powered by artificial pneumatic muscles. , 2005, Journal of applied biomechanics.

[4]  Sunil Kumar Agrawal,et al.  Gravity-Balancing Leg Orthosis and Its Performance Evaluation , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[5]  Jungwon Yoon,et al.  Interaction control of a programmable footpad-type gait rehabilitation robot for active walking on various terrains , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[6]  Daniel P. Ferris,et al.  Powered lower limb orthoses for gait rehabilitation. , 2005, Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation.

[7]  V. Dietz,et al.  Treadmill training of paraplegic patients using a robotic orthosis. , 2000, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[8]  J. Veneman Design and evaluation of the gait rehabilitation robot LOPES , 2007 .

[9]  Sunil K. Agrawal,et al.  Gait Rehabilitation With an Active Leg Orthosis , 2005 .

[10]  Hugh Herr,et al.  Exoskeletons and orthoses: classification, design challenges and future directions , 2009, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[11]  Garrett Grindle,et al.  A perspective on intelligent devices and environments in medical rehabilitation. , 2008, Medical engineering & physics.

[12]  Henning Schmidt,et al.  Machines to support motor rehabilitation after stroke: 10 years of experience in Berlin. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[13]  B. Dobkin,et al.  Modulation of locomotor-like EMG activity in subjects with complete and incomplete spinal cord injury. , 1995, Journal of neurologic rehabilitation.

[15]  R. Riener,et al.  Hybrid force-position control yields cooperative behaviour of the rehabilitation robot LOKOMAT , 2005, 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005..

[16]  Z. Stojiljkovic,et al.  Development of active anthropomorphic exoskeletons , 2007, Medical and biological engineering.

[17]  P. Cochat,et al.  Et al , 2008, Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie.