Table 5 Results for the six most addressed domains classified according to EXO and time since injury
Study | Walking | Cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses | Spasticity | Balance | Quality of Life | Human Robot Interaction | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exoskeleton: Ekso | ||||||||
Subacute | n-RCT | Tsai et al. 2020 | ||||||
McIntosh et al. 2020 | Session 2, 13, 25: 6MWT ↗, 10MWT ↘ | Longitudinal evaluation: BP and HR: Sitting < Standing < After walking; BRPE (1–10) ↗ | Longitudinal evaluation: VAS_p ↘ | |||||
Chronic | RCT | Chang et al. 2018 | Post vs Pre training: stride length ↑; step length ↑; 6MWT ↑; cadence ↑; 10MWT ↓ | Post vs Pre training: TUG ↓ | ||||
n-RCT | Gagnon et al. 2018 (A) | Post vs Pre training: 10MWT ↓ | Longitudinal evaluation: level of assistance provided by trained assistant during walking ↘ | |||||
Escalona et al. 2018 | Single evaluation: HR, VO2, VCO2, RR and VE: Sitting < Standing < Walking; RER: Sitting > Standing < Walking; VT: Sitting < Walking; Single evaluation after walking: BRPE(1–10) not compared | |||||||
Sale et al. 2016 (A) | Post vs Pre training: velocity ↑; cadence ↑; 6MWT indoor/outdoor ↑; 10MWT ↓; step length ↑; step width ↑; stance time ↑, double support time (rigth ↑, left ↓) | Post vs Pre training: BRPE (1–10) ↓; VAS fatigue ↓ | Post vs Pre training: VAS_p ↓ | Post vs Pre training: TUG ↓ | Post vs Pre training: Satisfaction questionnaire ↑ | |||
Alamro et al. 2018 | Single evaluation: trunk medial–lateral/anterior–posterior acceleration Ekso-OG > trunk medial–lateral/anterior–posterior acceleration Lokomat; Trunk acceleration: no differences between Ekso-OG vs Ekso on treadmill | |||||||
Karelis et al. 2017 | ||||||||
Ramanujam et al. 2018 (A) | Single evaluation: walking velocity: SCI < ABs passive condition; stance time: SCI > ABs active condition; walking velocity: ABs with Ekso < ABs without Ekso; ROM: SCI < ABs active condition | |||||||
Gagnon et al. 2019 (B) | Post training: on line questionnaire not compared | |||||||
Ramanujam et al. 2018 (B) | Post vs Pre training individuals with SCI: walking speed ↑, stride time ↓, stance time ↓, double support ↓, step length ↑, step frequency ↑, stride length ↑ | |||||||
Kressler et al. 2014 (A) | Post vs Mid vs Pre training: 10MWT ↓, 2MWT ↑ | Post vs Mid vs Pre training: EE ↓ for 2/3 individuals, %VO2 peak ↓ for 2/3 individuals | Post vs Mid vs Pre training: SCATS ↓, ISCIBPD sleep interference ↓, NRS_p ↓ | |||||
Kressler et al. 2019 (B) | HR: Ekso < OG for 2/2 individuals; VO2, EE: Ekso < OG for 1/2 individuals | |||||||
Cahill et al. 2018 | Post training: semi structured interview not compared | |||||||
Subacute + chronic | n-RCT | Baunsgaard et al. 2018 (A) | Subacute: Post vs Pre training and FU vs Pre training: 10MWT ↓, WISCI II ↑ | Subacute: Session 1, 12, 24: HR: sitting < walking, BP nc; Longitudinal evaluation: BRPE(6–20) ↘ | Subacute: Post vs Pre training and FU vs Pre: TUG ↓, BBS ↑ | |||
Chronic: Post vs Pre training and FU vs Pre training: 10MWT ↓, WISCI II ↑ | Chronic: Session 1, 12, 24: HR sitting > standing, BP nc Longitudinal evaluation: BRPE(6–20) ↘ | Chronic: Post vs Pre training and FU vs Pre: TUG ↓, BBS ↑ | ||||||
Baunsgaard et al. 2018 (B) | FU vs Post vs Mid vs Pre training: ROM nc | Post vs Pre training: MAS ↓, Post vs Pre training and FU vs Pre training: ISCIBPDS ↓ | Post vs Pre training and FU vs Pre training: ISCIBDS (satisfaction item): chronic ↑, subacte nc | |||||
Stampacchia et al. 2016 | Post vs Pre single session: MAS ↓, NRS_sp ↓, PSFS ↓, NRS_p ↓ | Post single session: PGIC not compared, ad hoc questionnaire for subjective experience not compared | ||||||
Kozlowski et al. 2015 | Best performance: distance, 2MWT | METs: mid-time session > pre session; HR, BRPE(6–20): Sitting < Walking; HR, BRPE(6–20): Sitting < After Walking; BP variable | N of sessions to achieve: walk, stand/sit with minimal assistance: median of 8 sessions; "contact guard" for walking and stand/sit: median of 15 and 18 session; donn/doff assistance: not compared | |||||
Kolakowsky-Hayner et al. 2013 | Longitudinal evaluation: step length nc, distance ↗ | Longitudinal evaluation: SPS ↘ | Longitudinal evaluation: loss of balance ↘ and infrequent | Longitudinal evaluation: don/doff time ↘, level of assistance provided by trained assistant during walking ↘ | ||||
Unspecified TSI | n-RCT | Sale et al. 2018 (B) | Pre vs Post training: 6MWT indoor/outdoor ↑; 10MWT ↓, cadence ↑, stride length ↑, velocity ↑, hip and ankle ROM ↑, stance time ↓, double support time ↓ | Post vs Pre training: BRPE 1–10: outdoor ↓, indoor ↑; VAS fatigue ↓ | Post vs Pre training: VAS_p ↓ | Post vs Pre training: TUG ↓ | Post vs Pre training: Satisfaction questionnaire (safety and comfort items) ↑ | |
Exoskeleton: ReWalk | ||||||||
Chronic | n-RCT | Asselin et al. 2015 | Single evaluation: HR and VO2: Walking > Standing > Sitting; After walking: BRPE (6–20) not compared | |||||
Khan et al. 2019 | Longitudinal evaluation: steps without stopping ↗, distance ↗, walking speed ↗ FU vs Post training vs FU: 10MWT ↑, 6MWT ↓ | PCI walking with ReWalk > PCI wheelchair propulsion | Post vs Pre each sessions: NRS_p ↓ Weekly: McGill Pain Questionnaire Rating Pain Index nc, SCATS nc | Post vs Pre training: limits of stability ↑, sway speed in sitting ↓ FU vs Post training: limits of stability ↓, sway speed ↑ | ||||
Platz et al. 2016 | Post vs Pre training: REPAS ↓ | N of sessions to achieve: standing balance 1 min with crutches not compared | Post vs Pre training: SF-12v2 (single role-physical domain) ↑ FU vs Post training: SF-12v2 ↑; Post training: Satisfaction questionnaire not compared | N of sessions to achieve: sit to stand, stand to sit, walk 10 mt straight, walk 10 m straight and in curve, scend, turn around, and descend 12 steps, walk 500 m (outdoors): not compared | ||||
van Dijsseldonk et al. 2019 | Predictors of exoskeleton skill performance at Intermediate-skills-tests: lesion level, active lifestyle, age at injury, age at enrolment, BMI significantly correlate with EXO skill performance Post vs Pre training: no predictors significantly related to exoskeleton skill performance | |||||||
Chun et al. 2020 | ||||||||
Yang et al. 2015 | Best Performance: inverse relationship between level of assistance provided by trained assistant during walking and walking velocity for both 6MWT and 10MWT | |||||||
Benson et al. 2016 | Post vs Pre training: 10MWT ↓, 6MWT ↑ | Post vs Pre each session: HR ↑, BP ↑, VAS (fatigue) ↑ | Post vs Pre each session:: VAS_p ↑, AS ↓ | Post vs Pre training: TUG ↓ | Post vs Pre training: ADAPSS ↓, ATD-PA ↓ | |||
Fineberg et al. 2013 | Single evaluation: walking velocity and vGRF: SCI minimum assistanca < ABs minimum assistance | |||||||
Guanziroli et al. 2019 | Single evaluation: 10MWT: 2nd generation < 1st generation; 6MWT: 2nd generation > 1st generation | Single evaluation: STS: 2nd generation < 1st generation | ||||||
Zeilig et al. 2012 | Single evaluation Post training: 10MWT: low lesions < high lesions; 6MWT: low lesions > high lesions | Post vs Pre training: BP ↑, HR ↑, VAS (fatigue) ↑ | Post vs Pre training: VAS_p ↓ | Single evaluation Post training: TUG no difference between lesion level | Single evaluation Post training: Satisfaction questionnaire not compared | |||
Esquenazi et al. 2012 | Single evaluation Post training: 10MWT and 6MWT not compared | Post vs Pre each sessions: HR ↑, BP ↑, VAS fatigue nc | Pre vs Post across sessions: VAS_p ↓, AS ↓ | Single evaluation Post training: Satisfaction questionnaire not compared | ||||
Lonini et al. 2016 | Longitudinal evaluation: trunk angle ↘; Post vs Pre training: 10MWT ↓, Hip Flexion nc; Knee Flexion ↑, Swing Time ↓, Step Delay ↓ | Longitudinal evaluation: EE ↘ | ||||||
Manns et al. 2019 | Single evaluation Post training: semi structured interview spasticity ↓ for 4/11 individuals, pain ↓ for 2/11 individuals; FU: semi structured interview pain ↑ for 2/11 individuals | |||||||
Talaty et al. 2013 | Single evaluation: trunk flexion (initial swing), trunk extension (entire gait cycle), hip extension (entire gait cycle), pelvis extension (entire gait cycle), knee flexion (swing), ankle plantarflexion (early stance): fast group > medium/slow group knee extension (stance) nc across groups | |||||||
Exoskeleton: Indego | ||||||||
Chronic | n-RCT | Evans et al. 2015 | 6MWT: "Fast but safe" speed > comfortable speed | VO2 average and MET: "Fast but safe" speed > comfortable speed; %VO2 peak and HR peak: "Fast but safe" speed > comfortable speed; walking economy: "Fast but safe" speed < comfortable speed | ||||
Subacute + chronic | n-RCT | Juszczak et al. 2018 | Post vs Pre training: indoor BRPE(6–20) ↓, outdoor BRPE(6–20) nc | Post vs Pre training: MAS ↓, NRS_sp ↓ | Post vs Pre training: SWLS ↑ | Post vs Pre training: Donn time ↓, doff time ↓ | ||
Unspecified TSI | n-RCT | Tefertiller et al. 2018 | Post vs Mid training indoor/outdoor 10MWT ↓, 6MWT ↑; Single evaluation: 600MWT not compared | Post vs Mid training: TUG ↓ | Post vs Mid training: Donn/Doff time ↓ | |||
Hartigan et al. 2015 | Single evaluation: 10MWT, 6MWT: not compared | Single evaluation: Donn/Doff Time, level of external assistance provided by trained assistant during walking: not compared | ||||||
Exoskeleton: HAL | ||||||||
Subacute | n-RCT | Yatsugi et al. 2018 | Post vs Pre training: 10MWT ↓, cadence ↓, angle of trunk swing ↓, GARS-M score ↑, WISCI II ↑ | |||||
Kubota et al. 2019 | Post vs Pre training: 10MWT ↓, Step Lenght ↑, cadence ↑, WISCI II ↑ | |||||||
Exoskeleton: Rex | ||||||||
Chronic | n-RCT | Birch et al. 2017 | Single evaluation: TUG not compared | Single evaluation: Acceptability Questionaire: not compared | Single evaluation: Time to transfer into device and level of assistance provided by trained assistant to perform 2 excersises with upper extremities: not compared | |||