Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2018
Locomotor training using an overground robotic exoskeleton in long-term manual wheelchair users with a chronic spinal cord injury living in the community: Lessons learned from a feasibility study in terms of recruitment, attendance, learnability, performance and safety.
Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effect of robot-assisted gait training on physical activity outcomes in people with spinal cord injury: A systematic review.Clinical rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of the effects of lower extremity exoskeleton robot on the improvement of walking ability and curative effect in SCI patients.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of an exoskeleton robot on motor function in patients with spinal cord injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Exoskeleton-based exercises for overground gait and balance rehabilitation in spinal cord injury: a systematic review of dose and dosage parameters.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of the determinants of implementation of a locomotor training program using a powered exoskeleton for individuals with a spinal cord injury.Clinical rehabilitation · 2023Pooled it
- Wearable powered exoskeletons for gait training in tetraplegia: a systematic review on feasibility, safety and potential health benefits.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2022Pooled it
- Overground robotic training effects on walking and secondary health conditions in individuals with spinal cord injury: systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review on wearable lower-limb exoskeletons for gait training in neuromuscular impairments.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical outcomes of rehabilitation with a robotic anthropomorphic exoskeleton in patients with motor-incomplete spinal cord injury: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Exoskeleton-based training improves walking independence in incomplete spinal cord injury patients: results from a randomized controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Trial
- Comparing walking with knee-ankle-foot orthoses and a knee-powered exoskeleton after spinal cord injury: a randomized, crossover clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- Implementing Rehabilitation Robotics in Routine Care: A Mapping Review of Service Delivery Models, Implementation Determinants, Strategies, and Real-World Outcomes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Retrospective safety evaluation of the atalante exoskeleton in a clinical setting in patients with tetraplegia and high paraplegia.Spinal cord series and cases · 2026Article
- Modeling and validation of crutch-supported exoskeleton gait using a double-inverted pendulum approach.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Physical rehabilitation techniques for spinal cord injury: A scoping review.African journal of disability · 2026Review
- Traumatic spinal cord injury: a review of the current state of art and future directions - what do we know and where are we going?North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Feasibility and safety of automated multi-channel FES-assisted gait training in incomplete spinal cord injury.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- Consumer views of functional electrical stimulation and robotic exoskeleton in SCI rehabilitation: A mini review.Artificial organs · 2025Review
- Hip, knee, and ankle joint forces during exoskeletal-assisted walking: Comparison of approaches to simulate human-robot interactions.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor individuals who sustain a complete motor spinal cord injury (SCI) and rely on a wheelchair as their primary mode of locomotion, overground robotic exoskeletons represent a promising solution to stand and walk again. Although overground robotic exoskeletons have gained tremendous attention over the past decade and are now being transferred from laboratories to clinical settings, their effects remain unclear given the paucity of scientific evidence and the absence of large-scale clinical trials. This study aims to examine the feasibility of a locomotor training program with an overground robotic exoskeleton in terms of recruitment, attendance, and drop-out rates as well as walking performance, learnability, and safety.
methodsIndividuals with a SCI were invited to participate in a 6 to 8-week locomotor training program with a robotic exoskeleton encompassing 18 sessions. Selected participants underwent a comprehensive screening process and completed two familiarization sessions with the robotic exoskeleton. The outcome measures were the rate of recruitment of potential participants, the rate of attendance at training sessions, the rate of drop-outs, the ability to walk with the exoskeleton, and its progression over the program as well as the adverse events.
resultsOut of 49 individuals who expressed their interest in participating in the study, only 14 initiated the program (recruitment rate = 28.6%). Of these, 13 individuals completed the program (drop-out rate = 7.1%) and attended 17.6 ± 1.1 sessions (attendance rate = 97.9%). Their greatest standing time, walking time, and number of steps taken during a session were 64.5 ± 10.2 min, 47.2 ± 11.3 min, and 1843 ± 577 steps, respectively. During the training program, these last three parameters increased by 45.3%, 102.1%, and 248.7%, respectively. At the end of the program, when walking with the exoskeleton, most participants required one therapist (85.7%), needed stand-by or contact-guard assistance (57.1%), used forearm crutches (71.4%), and reached a walking speed of 0.25 ± 0.05 m/s. Five participants reported training-related pain or stiffness in the upper extremities during the program. One participant sustained bilateral calcaneal fractures and stopped the program.
conclusionsThis study confirms that larger clinical trials investigating the effects of a locomotor training program with an overground robotic exoskeleton are feasible and relatively safe in individuals with complete motor SCI. Moreover, to optimize the recruitment rate and safety in future trials, this study now highlights the need of developing pre-training rehabilitation programs to increase passive lower extremity range of motion and standing tolerance. This study also calls for the development of clinical practice guidelines targeting fragility fracture risk assessment linked to the use of overground robotic exoskeletons.
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.