ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Robotic exoskeleton rehabilitation in incomplete L2 paraplegia: functional gains contrast with metabolic challenges - a multidimensional case report.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Incomplete paraplegia presents complex rehabilitation challenges due to its multisystemic impact on motor function, bone health, and metabolic regulation. This case report evaluates the effects of robotic exoskeleton rehabilitation addressing a critical gap in understanding the multidimensional outcomes of this emerging technology. Case presentation: An 18-year-old male with traumatic L2 AIS C paraplegia underwent 20 sessions of robotic exoskeleton training (Atalante exoskeleton) during 60 min of therapy (20-min setup, 20-min walking, 10-min squats and recovery) combined with conventional physiotherapy over six months. Conventional therapy complemented exoskeleton training by addressing residual strength deficits through resisted knee extension (3 × 10 reps at 60% 1-RM) and functional mobility via overground gait training with knee-ankle-foot orthoses (KAFOs) (2×/week, 10 m walks. Comprehensive assessments included isokinetic dynamometry (CYBEX), bone densitometry (DXA), AIS impairment scale, and functional mobility tests (Timed Up and Go, 10-meter walk test). Results demonstrated neurological improvement (AIS L2-L3 motor score improved from 4/5 to 5/5, with light touch improving from 78 to 84) and gait capacity recovery (300 m with crutches). Musculoskeletal outcomes revealed a 21.7% improvement in right hip extensor torque (69→84 Nm), though still 19.2% below the patient's own 6-month post-injury baseline value (104 Nm), while bone mineral density showed site-specific effects (lumbar spine: +50%, T-score -2.6→0.8; femur: T-score -3.3→-1.3). Notably, functional gains correlated with hip torque recovery (TUG: r = -0.71), but bilateral deficit worsened (12%→42%), and visceral fat increased dramatically (359%) despite functional improvements. Discussion: This case demonstrates that exoskeleton training effectively enhances mobility and bone health through weight-bearing stimulation, particularly at lumbar spine. However, the paradoxical metabolic changes and persistent neuromuscular asymmetries reveal critical limitations of current robotic rehabilitation approaches. These findings support the concept of spinal cord injury as a multisystem disorder requiring integrated interventions that combine exoskeleton training with nutritional strategies and asymmetric muscle training. The case provides novel insights for developing comprehensive rehabilitation protocols that address both functional recovery and secondary health complications in incomplete paraplegia.
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.