Table 4 Summary of efficacy of BWSTT exoskeleton-assisted gait training
4.1 BSWTT-RAGT vs BSWTT-TAGT | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author | Hornby et al. [35] | Belas Dos Santos et al. [36] | Lewek et al. [38] | Westlake et al. [39] | |
Additional treatment provided | N/A | Conventional PT | N/A | N/A | |
Results in BSWTT-RAGT groups (pre, post change, p < 0.05) | Body function/structure level | SSV + 0.07, d = 0.29 FV + 0.06, d = 0.19 | SARA − 3.5, d = 0.49 BBS + 5.8, d = 0.31 TUG − 0:19 s, d = 0.64 | No change | FMLE + 2.6, d = 0.56, BBS + 1.4, d = 0.2 SS + 0.01 m/s, d = 0.29 FV + 0.09 m/s, d = 0.15 SLR (abs) − 0.16, d = 0.31 |
Activity level | – | FIM + 4.6, d = 0.34 | – | – | |
Results between groups (p < 0.05) | BWSTT-TAGT group showed greater improvements in SSV + 0.06 m/s, d = 0.65, FV + 0.07 m/s, d = 0.69, Single limb stance time at FV: + 2.4 ± 3.7%, d = 0.91 | No significant difference | No significant difference | No significant difference | |
4.2 BSWTT-RAGT vs BSWTT-RAGT with combination therapy | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Author | Danzl et al. [40] | Bae et al. [41] | |
Additional treatment provided | tDCS for experimental group | FES for experimental group Conventional PT | |
Results in BSWTT-RAGT groups (pre, post change, p < 0.05) | Body function/structure level | 10MWT + improved | MAS + 1.92, d = 0.27 TUG − 5.63 s, d = 0.38 BBS + 3.43, d = 0.41 Gait speed + 0.007 m/s, d = 0.47 Step length + 0.05, d = 0.43 Stride length + 0.33, d = 0.33 Maximal Knee flexion + 18.747 d = 1.07 Maximal Knee flexion + 6.904 d = 0.58 |
Activity level | FAC + improved SIS-16 + improved | – | |
Results between groups (p < 0.05) | BSWTT-RAGT with active tDCS group showed greater improvement than the sham group in 10MWT, FAC, and SIS-16 measures except BBS | BSWTT-RAGT with FES group showed a significantly greater in Maximal Knee flexion + 8.97, d = 0.56 | |
4.3 BSWTT-RAGT vs BWSTT | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Author | Ogino et al. [42] | Ogino et al. [43] | |
Additional treatment provided | N/A | N/A | |
Results in BSWTT-RAGT groups (pre, post change, p < 0.05) | Body function/structure level | GRC scale (change of gait) + improved | 10MWT + 0.09 m/s |
Activity level | – | – | |
Results between groups (p < 0.05) | No significant difference | BSWTT-RAGT group were significantly improved in TUG (r = 0.57), 6-min walk (r = 0.51) and score of general health in SF-8 (r = 0.49) | |
4.4 Other | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Author | Assist unaffected limb vs affected limb | HRR vs RPE guided BSWTT-RAGT | BSWTT-RAGT vs Conventional PT | |
Seo et al. [37] | Bae et al. [44] | Erbil et al. [45] | ||
Additional treatment provided | N/A | N/A | Conventional PT BoNT-A | |
Results in BSWTT-RAGT groups (pre, post change, p < 0.05) | Body function/structure level | Assist US: FMLE + 3.2, d = 1.18 MI + 11.7, d = 2.32 Step length asymmetry ratio -0.2, d = 2.0 Hip maximal extension moment (US) -0.5, d = 1.79 Assist AS: FMLE + 2.7, d = 1.29 Ankle maximal dorsiflexion angle (US) -8.9, d = 3.26 | HRR guided: FMLE + 3.67, d = 0.23, 10MWT + 0.22 m/s, d = 0.80, WS + 0.20 m/s, d = 1.53 And Improved in Stride length, Cadence, Single and Double support rate, Swing time, Stance time, Step length, and Symmetrical index RPE guided: FMLE + 2.20, d = 0.63, 10MWT + 0.13 m/s, d = 0.41, WS + 0.14 m/s, d = 0.14 And Improved in Stride length, Cadence, Single support rate Single and Double support rate, Swing time, Stance time, Step length, Symmetrical index | MAS − 1.5, d = 2.94 Tardieu Scale (spasticity grade) − 0.2, d = 0.44 BBS + 2.7, d = 0.29 TUG + 5.7, d = 0.66 |
Activity level | Assist US: FAC + 0.7, d = 2.33 | – | RVGA + 5.3, d = 1.0 | |
Results between groups (p < 0.05) | No significant difference | HRR-guided group showed significantly improved in compared to RPE-guided group in FMLE, 10MWT, WS, Stride length, Cadence, Single support rate, Single and Double support rate, Swing time, Symmetrical index | BSWTT-RAGT group is significantly higher in TUG, BBS, and RVGA | |