Observational studyThe journal of spinal cord medicine2017
Trunk muscle activity patterns and motion patterns of patients with motor complete spinal cord injury at T8 and T10 walking with different un-powered exoskeletons.
Observational study in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing walking with knee-ankle-foot orthoses and a knee-powered exoskeleton after spinal cord injury: a randomized, crossover clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- Exoskeleton-assisted walking improves pulmonary function and walking parameters among individuals with spinal cord injury: a randomized controlled pilot study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2021Trial
- Kinematic and electromyography analysis of paraplegic gait with the assistance of mechanical orthosis and walker.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2020Article
- Compliant lower limb exoskeletons: a comprehensive review on mechanical design principles.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2019Review
- Comparison of walking quality variables between incomplete spinal cord injury patients and healthy subjects by using a footscan plantar pressure system.Neural regeneration research · 2019Article
- The foot and ankle structures reveal emergent properties analogous to passive springs during human walking.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore how neurological injured levels of spinal cord affect the performance of patients walking with different un-powered exoskeletons. STUDY
designCase series observational study.
settingGait and Motion Analysis Laboratory at the National Research Center Rehabilitation Technical Aids.
methodsElectromyography and motion data from two subjects with complete spinal cord injury at T10 and T8 walking with un-powered exoskeletons were collected simultaneously. OUTCOME MEASURES: Surface electromyography of trunk muscles and motion data including joint angle and center of mass (COM).
resultsCompared to T10 subject, T8 subject activated trunk muscles in higher levels walking with all tested un-powered exoskeletons and had greater pelvic obliquity walking with reciprocating gait orthosis (RGO) and energy-stored exoskeleton (ES-EXO). ES-EXO can redistribute muscle forces, recruit trunk muscles evenly, increase walking speed and improve COM trajectory in frontal plane.
conclusionThis study revealed differences in kinematics and muscle activities in walking with three un-powered exoskeletons between two patients with different neurological injured levels. ES-EXO had advantages over conventional un-powered exoskeletons on recruiting muscles evenly and improving walking speed, step length and COM trajectory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.