Feasibility and Safety of a Powered Exoskeleton for Assisted Walking for Persons With Multiple Sclerosis: A Single-Group Preliminary Study.

OBJECTIVE To examine the feasibility, safety, and secondary benefit potential of exoskeleton-assisted walking with one device for persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). DESIGN Single-group longitudinal preliminary study with 8-week baseline, 8-week intervention, and 4-week follow-up. SETTING Outpatient MS clinic, tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS Participants (N=13; age range, 38-62y) were mostly women with Expanded Disability Status Scale scores ranging from 5.5 to 7.0. INTERVENTION Exoskeleton-assisted walk training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcomes were accessibility (enrollment/screen pass), tolerability (completion/dropout), learnability (time to event for standing, walking, and sitting with little or no assistance), acceptability (satisfaction on the device subscale of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology version 2), and safety (event rates standardized to person-time exposure in the powered exoskeleton). Secondary outcomes were walking without the device (timed 25-foot walk test and 6-minute walk test distance), spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale), and health-related quality of life (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement and Information System pain interference and Quality of Life in Neurological Conditions fatigue, sleep disturbance, depression, and positive affect and well-being). RESULTS The device was accessible to 11 and tolerated by 5 participants. Learnability was moderate, with 5 to 15 sessions required to walk with minimal assistance. Safety was good; the highest adverse event rate was for skin issues at 151 per 1000 hours' exposure. Acceptability ranged from not very satisfied to very satisfied. Participants who walked routinely improved qualitatively on sitting, standing, or walking posture. Two participants improved and 2 worsened on ≥1 quality of life domain. The pattern of spasticity scores may indicate potential benefit. CONCLUSIONS The device appeared feasible and safe for about a third of our sample, for whom routine exoskeleton-assisted walking may offer secondary benefits.

[1]  C. M. Wiles,et al.  Quantification of walking mobility in neurological disorders. , 2004, QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians.

[2]  S Choi,et al.  Neuro-QOL , 2012, Neurology.

[3]  Richard W. Bohannon,et al.  Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. , 1987, Physical therapy.

[4]  Hideyuki Saitou,et al.  Locomotion improvement using a hybrid assistive limb in recovery phase stroke patients: a randomized controlled pilot study. , 2014, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[5]  Lorna Paul,et al.  Reliability and clinical significance of mobility and balance assessments in multiple sclerosis , 2012, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[6]  Jeffrey A. Cohen,et al.  Evaluation of the six-minute walk in multiple sclerosis subjects and healthy controls , 2008, Multiple sclerosis.

[7]  D. Cella,et al.  Evaluating Individual Change With the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QoL) Short Forms. , 2016, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[8]  Marcel P Dijkers,et al.  Time and Effort Required by Persons with Spinal Cord Injury to Learn to Use a Powered Exoskeleton for Assisted Walking. , 2015, Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation.

[9]  C. Chisari,et al.  The effects of robot-assisted gait training in progressive multiple sclerosis: A randomized controlled trial , 2016, Multiple sclerosis.

[10]  S Santhosh,et al.  510(k) Premarket Notification , 2018 .

[11]  P. Harris,et al.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[12]  R. Meeusen,et al.  Treadmill Training in Multiple Sclerosis: Can Body Weight Support or Robot Assistance Provide Added Value? A Systematic Review , 2012, Multiple sclerosis international.

[13]  Frances Lynn,et al.  Timed 25-Foot Walk , 2013, Neurology.

[14]  C. Wolfson,et al.  Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis , 2002, Disability and rehabilitation.

[15]  Martin Tegenthoff,et al.  Locomotion training using voluntary driven exoskeleton (HAL) in acute incomplete SCI , 2014, Neurology.

[16]  Clare Hartigan,et al.  Mobility Outcomes Following Five Training Sessions with a Powered Exoskeleton. , 2015, Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation.

[17]  N. Larocca Impact of Walking Impairment in Multiple Sclerosis , 2011, The patient.

[18]  H Rodgers,et al.  A review of the properties and limitations of the Ashworth and modified Ashworth Scales as measures of spasticity , 1999, Clinical rehabilitation.

[19]  Yoshiyuki Sankai,et al.  Feasibility and safety of acute phase rehabilitation after stroke using the hybrid assistive limb robot suit. , 2013, Neurologia medico-chirurgica.

[20]  Jeffrey A. Cohen,et al.  Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 Revisions to the McDonald criteria , 2011, Annals of neurology.

[21]  Steven Knezevic,et al.  Training Persons with Spinal Cord Injury to Ambulate Using a Powered Exoskeleton , 2016, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[22]  Jörgen Borg,et al.  Clinical application of the Hybrid Assistive Limb (HAL) for gait training—a systematic review , 2015, Front. Syst. Neurosci..