Lower-limb exoskeletons for individuals with chronic spinal cord injury: Findings from a feasibility study

Clinical Rehabilitation

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 73-84

  Benson, Ian ^a   Hart, Kirsten ^a   Tussler, Dot ^a   Van Middendorp, Joost J ^a  

^a STOKE MANDEVILLE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

ambulation; assistive technology; exoskeleton; feasibility study; Spinal cord injury

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CHRONIC DISEASE; DEVICES; EXOSKELETON (REHABILITATION); FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMAN; INJURY SCALE; KINESIOTHERAPY; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; LOWER LIMB; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PARAPLEGIA; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SELF HELP DEVICE; SPINAL CORD INJURIES; TIME FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTILIZATION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CHRONIC DISEASE; EXERCISE THERAPY; EXOSKELETON DEVICE; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INJURY SEVERITY SCORE; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; LOWER EXTREMITY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PARAPLEGIA; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SELF-HELP DEVICES; SPINAL CORD INJURIES; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84949670744     PISSN: 02692155     EISSN: 14770873     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0269215515575166     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Harvey LA, Lin CW, Glinsky JV, et al. The effectiveness of physical interventions for people with spinal cord injuries: a systematic review. Spinal Cord 2009; 47: 184-195.
2. Ditunno PL, Patrick M, Stineman M, et al. Who wants to walk? Preferences for recovery after SCI: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Spinal Cord 2008; 46: 500-506.
3. van Middendorp JJ, Hosman AJ, Donders AR, et al. A clinical prediction rule for ambulation outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury: A longitudinal cohort study. Lancet 2011; 377: 1004-1010.
4. Morawietz C, Moffat F,. Effects of locomotor training after incomplete spinal cord injury: A systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94: 2297-2308.
5. Esquenazi A, Talaty M, Packel A, et al. The ReWalk powered exoskeleton to restore ambulatory function to individuals with thoracic-level motor-complete spinal cord injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 91: 911-921.
6. Farris RJ, Quintero HA, Murray SA, et al. A preliminary assessment of legged mobility provided by a lower limb exoskeleton for persons with paraplegia. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2014; 22: 482-490.
7. Kolakowsky-Hayner SA, Crew J, Moran S, et al. Safety and feasibility of using the EksoTM Bionic Exoskeleton to aid ambulation after spinal cord injury. Journal of Spine 2013.
8. Talaty M, Esquenazi A, Briceno JE,. Differentiating ability in users of the ReWalk(TM) powered exoskeleton: An analysis of walking kinematics. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot 2013; 2013: 6650469.
9. Zeilig G, Weingarden H, Zwecker M, et al. Safety and tolerance of the ReWalk exoskeleton suit for ambulation by people with complete spinal cord injury: A pilot study. J Spinal Cord Med 2012; 35: 96-101.
10. Kirshblum SC, Burns SP, Biering-Sorensen F, et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011). J Spinal Cord Med 2011; 34: 535-546.
11. Beeckman D, Schoonhoven L, Fletcher J, et al. EPUAP classification system for pressure ulcers: European reliability study. J Adv Nurs 2007; 60: 682-691.
12. Salbach NM, Mayo NE, Higgins J, et al. Responsiveness and predictability of gait speed and other disability measures in acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 1204-1212.
13. ACoPSfCPF Laboratories. ATS statement: Guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 111-117.
14. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S,. The timed "Up & Go": a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 142-148.
15. Dean RE, Kennedy P,. Measuring appraisals following acquired spinal cord injury: a preliminary psychometric analysis of the appraisals of disability. Rehabil Psychol 2009; 54: 222-231.
16. Scherer MJ,. Assessing the benefits of using assistive technologies and other supports for thinking, remembering and learning. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27: 731-739.
17. Fawcett JW, Curt A, Steeves JD, et al. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP panel: spontaneous recovery after spinal cord injury and statistical power needed for therapeutic clinical trials. Spinal Cord 2007; 45: 190-205.
18. van Hedel HJ,. Improvement in function after spinal cord injury: The black-box entitled rehabilitation. Swiss Med Wkly 2012; 142: w13673.
19. Lapointe R, Lajoie Y, Serresse O, et al. Functional community ambulation requirements in incomplete spinal cord injured subjects. Spinal Cord 2001; 39: 327-335.
20. Fineberg DB, Asselin P, Harel NY, et al. Vertical ground reaction force-based analysis of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in persons with motor-complete paraplegia. J Spinal Cord Med 2013; 36: 313-321.
21. Marin J, Nixon J, Gorecki C,. A systematic review of risk factors for the development and recurrence of pressure ulcers in people with spinal cord injuries. Spinal Cord 2013; 51: 522-527.
22. Eser P, Frotzler A, Zehnder Y, et al. Fracture threshold in the femur and tibia of people with spinal cord injury as determined by peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 498-504.
23. Fattal C, Mariano-Goulart D, Thomas E, et al. Osteoporosis in persons with spinal cord injury: The need for a targeted therapeutic education. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 92: 59-67.
24. Brown-Triolo DL, Roach MJ, Nelson K, et al. Consumer perspectives on mobility: implications for neuroprosthesis design. J Rehabil Res Dev 2002; 39: 659-669.