Display options
Cite
Miller LE, Zimmermann AK, Herbert WG. Clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in patients with spinal cord injury: systematic review with meta-analysis. Med Devices (Auckl). 2016;9:455-66doi: 10.2147/MDER.S103102.
Miller, L. E., Zimmermann, A. K., & Herbert, W. G. (2016). Clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in patients with spinal cord injury: systematic review with meta-analysis. Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 9455-66. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S103102
Miller, Larry E, et al. "Clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in patients with spinal cord injury: systematic review with meta-analysis." Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) vol. 9 (2016): 455-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S103102
Miller LE, Zimmermann AK, Herbert WG. Clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in patients with spinal cord injury: systematic review with meta-analysis. Med Devices (Auckl). 2016 Mar 22;9:455-66. doi: 10.2147/MDER.S103102. eCollection 2016. PMID: 27042146; PMCID: PMC4809334.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Med Devices (Auckl). 2016 Mar 22;9:455-66. doi: 10.2147/MDER.S103102. eCollection 2016.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in patients with spinal cord injury: systematic review with meta-analysis.

Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)

Larry E Miller, Angela K Zimmermann, William G Herbert

Affiliations

  1. Miller Scientific Consulting, Inc., Asheville, NC, USA.
  2. Miller Scientific Consulting, Inc., Asheville, NC, USA; Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.

PMID: 27042146 PMCID: PMC4809334 DOI: 10.2147/MDER.S103102

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Powered exoskeletons are designed to safely facilitate ambulation in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). We conducted the first meta-analysis of the available published research on the clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeletons in SCI patients.

METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in patients with SCI. Main outcomes were analyzed using fixed and random effects meta-analysis models.

RESULTS: A total of 14 studies (eight ReWalk™, three Ekso™, two Indego(®), and one unspecified exoskeleton) representing 111 patients were included in the analysis. Training programs were typically conducted three times per week, 60-120 minutes per session, for 1-24 weeks. Ten studies utilized flat indoor surfaces for training and four studies incorporated complex training, including walking outdoors, navigating obstacles, climbing and descending stairs, and performing activities of daily living. Following the exoskeleton training program, 76% of patients were able to ambulate with no physical assistance. The weighted mean distance for the 6-minute walk test was 98 m. The physiologic demand of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking was 3.3 metabolic equivalents and rating of perceived exertion was 10 on the Borg 6-20 scale, comparable to self-reported exertion of an able-bodied person walking at 3 miles per hour. Improvements in spasticity and bowel movement regularity were reported in 38% and 61% of patients, respectively. No serious adverse events occurred. The incidence of fall at any time during training was 4.4%, all occurring while tethered using a first-generation exoskeleton and none resulting in injury. The incidence of bone fracture during training was 3.4%. These risks have since been mitigated with newer generation exoskeletons and refinements to patient eligibility criteria.

CONCLUSION: Powered exoskeletons allow patients with SCI to safely ambulate in real-world settings at a physical activity intensity conducive to prolonged use and known to yield health benefits.

Keywords: Ekso; Indego; ReWalk; SCI; ambulation; orthosis

References

  1. NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;37(3):321-40 - PubMed
  2. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016 Oct;11(7):535-47 - PubMed
  3. JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Jun;175(6):959-67 - PubMed
  4. J Spinal Cord Med. 2012 Mar;35(2):96-101 - PubMed
  5. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:893468 - PubMed
  6. Spinal Cord. 2000 Sep;38(9):555-8 - PubMed
  7. J Spinal Cord Med. 2013 Jul;36(4):313-21 - PubMed
  8. World J Orthop. 2015 Jan 18;6(1):24-33 - PubMed
  9. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;14(5):377-81 - PubMed
  10. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Apr;42(4):691-700 - PubMed
  11. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Nov;91(11):911-21 - PubMed
  12. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2015 Spring;21(2):93-9 - PubMed
  13. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2015 Spring;21(2):100-9 - PubMed
  14. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2015 Spring;21(2):122-32 - PubMed
  15. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982 May 29;284(6329):1607-8 - PubMed
  16. Brain Res. 2015 Sep 4;1619:12-21 - PubMed
  17. Spinal Cord. 2013 Dec;51(12):882-92 - PubMed
  18. BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60 - PubMed
  19. Spinal Cord. 2014 Feb;52(2):110-6 - PubMed
  20. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 Jun;78(6):582-6 - PubMed
  21. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):W65-94 - PubMed
  22. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Oct 14;12:82 - PubMed
  23. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2015 Spring;21(2):110-21 - PubMed
  24. Paraplegia. 1995 Jul;33(7):409-15 - PubMed
  25. Clin Rehabil. 2016 Jan;30(1):73-84 - PubMed
  26. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Aug;76(8):779-83 - PubMed
  27. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Oct;95(10):1878-1887.e4 - PubMed
  28. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015 Sep 30;12:121 - PubMed
  29. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(2):147-58 - PubMed
  30. Spinal Cord. 2006 Aug;44(8):487-94 - PubMed
  31. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2014 Aug;114(8):1563-71 - PubMed
  32. Spinal Cord. 2013 May;51(5):356-9 - PubMed
  33. Spinal Cord. 2008 Jul;46(7):500-6 - PubMed
  34. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 Dec;113(12 ):3027-37 - PubMed
  35. Spinal Cord. 2011 Nov;49(11):1103-27 - PubMed
  36. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2013 Jun;2013:6650469 - PubMed

Publication Types