Dataset Information

Systematic review on wearable lower-limb exoskeletons for gait training in neuromuscular impairments.

ABSTRACT: Gait disorders can reduce the quality of life for people with neuromuscular impairments. Therefore, walking recovery is one of the main priorities for counteracting sedentary lifestyle, reducing secondary health conditions and restoring legged mobility. At present, wearable powered lower-limb exoskeletons are emerging as a revolutionary technology for robotic gait rehabilitation. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview on wearable lower-limb exoskeletons for people with neuromuscular impairments, addressing the following three questions: (1) what is the current technological status of wearable lower-limb exoskeletons for gait rehabilitation?, (2) what is the methodology used in the clinical validations of wearable lower-limb exoskeletons?, and (3) what are the benefits and current evidence on clinical efficacy of wearable lower-limb exoskeletons? We analyzed 87 clinical studies focusing on both device technology (e.g., actuators, sensors, structure) and clinical aspects (e.g., training protocol, outcome measures, patient impairments), and make available the database with all the compiled information. The results of the literature survey reveal that wearable exoskeletons have potential for a number of applications including early rehabilitation, promoting physical exercise, and carrying out daily living activities both at home and the community. Likewise, wearable exoskeletons may improve mobility and independence in non-ambulatory people, and may reduce secondary health conditions related to sedentariness, with all the advantages that this entails. However, the use of this technology is still limited by heavy and bulky devices, which require supervision and the use of walking aids. In addition, evidence supporting their benefits is still limited to short-intervention trials with few participants and diversity among their clinical protocols. Wearable lower-limb exoskeletons for gait rehabilitation are still in their early stages of development and randomized control trials are needed to demonstrate their clinical efficacy.

SUBMITTER: Rodriguez-Fernandez A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7852187 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany lower-limb exoskeletons have been developed to assist gait, exhibiting a large range of control methods. The goal of this paper is to review and classify these control strategies, that determine how these devices interact with the user.MethodsIn addition to covering the recent publications on the control of lower-limb exoskeletons for gait assistance, an effort has been made to review the controllers independently of the hardware and implementation aspects. The common 3-level structure (high, middle, and low levels) is first used to separate the continuous behavior (mid-level) from the implementation of position/torque control (low-level) and the detection of the terrain or user's intention (high-level). Within these levels, different approaches (functional units) have been identified and combined to describe each considered controller.Results291 references have been considered and sorted by the proposed classification. The methods identified in the high-level are manual user input, brain interfaces, or automatic mode detection based on the terrain or user's movements. In the mid-level, the synchronization is most often based on manual triggers by the user, discrete events (followed by state machines or time-based progression), or continuous estimations using state variables. The desired action is determined based on position/torque profiles, model-based calculations, or other custom functions of the sensory signals. In the low-level, position or torque controllers are used to carry out the desired actions. In addition to a more detailed description of these methods, the variants of implementation within each one are also compared and discussed in the paper.ConclusionsBy listing and comparing the features of the reviewed controllers, this work can help in understanding the numerous techniques found in the literature. The main identified trends are the use of pre-defined trajectories for full-mobilization and event-triggered (or adaptive-frequency-oscillator-synchronized) torque profiles for partial assistance. More recently, advanced methods to adapt the position/torque profiles online and automatically detect terrains or locomotion modes have become more common, but these are largely still limited to laboratory settings. An analysis of the possible underlying reasons of the identified trends is also carried out and opportunities for further studies are discussed.

Project description:BackgroundIn the past decade, there has been substantial progress in the development of robotic controllers that specify how lower-limb exoskeletons should interact with brain-injured patients. However, it is still an open question which exoskeleton control strategies can more effectively stimulate motor function recovery. In this review, we aim to complement previous literature surveys on the topic of exoskeleton control for gait rehabilitation by: (1) providing an updated structured framework of current control strategies, (2) analyzing the methodology of clinical validations used in the robotic interventions, and (3) reporting the potential relation between control strategies and clinical outcomes.MethodsFour databases were searched using database-specific search terms from January 2000 to September 2020. We identified 1648 articles, of which 159 were included and evaluated in full-text. We included studies that clinically evaluated the effectiveness of the exoskeleton on impaired participants, and which clearly explained or referenced the implemented control strategy.Results(1) We found that assistive control (100% of exoskeletons) that followed rule-based algorithms (72%) based on ground reaction force thresholds (63%) in conjunction with trajectory-tracking control (97%) were the most implemented control strategies. Only 14% of the exoskeletons implemented adaptive control strategies. (2) Regarding the clinical validations used in the robotic interventions, we found high variability on the experimental protocols and outcome metrics selected. (3) With high grade of evidence and a moderate number of participants (N = 19), assistive control strategies that implemented a combination of trajectory-tracking and compliant control showed the highest clinical effectiveness for acute stroke. However, they also required the longest training time. With high grade of evidence and low number of participants (N = 8), assistive control strategies that followed a threshold-based algorithm with EMG as gait detection metric and control signal provided the highest improvements with the lowest training intensities for subacute stroke. Finally, with high grade of evidence and a moderate number of participants (N = 19), assistive control strategies that implemented adaptive oscillator algorithms together with trajectory-tracking control resulted in the highest improvements with reduced training intensities for individuals with chronic stroke.ConclusionsDespite the efforts to develop novel and more effective controllers for exoskeleton-based gait neurorehabilitation, the current level of evidence on the effectiveness of the different control strategies on clinical outcomes is still low. There is a clear lack of standardization in the experimental protocols leading to high levels of heterogeneity. Standardized comparisons among control strategies analyzing the relation between control parameters and biomechanical metrics will fill this gap to better guide future technical developments. It is still an open question whether controllers that provide an on-line adaptation of the control parameters based on key biomechanical descriptors associated to the patients' specific pathology outperform current control strategies.

Dataset Information

Systematic review on wearable lower-limb exoskeletons for gait training in neuromuscular impairments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets