↓ Skip to main content

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…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
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
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12984-018-0354-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dany H. Gagnon, Manuel J. Escalona, Martin Vermette, Lívia P. Carvalho, Antony D. Karelis, Cyril Duclos, Mylène Aubertin-Leheudre

Abstract

For 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. Individuals 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. Out 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. This 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 226 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 15%
Student > Master 26 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 10%
Researcher 15 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 84 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 13%
Engineering 21 9%
Sports and Recreations 11 5%
Neuroscience 9 4%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 92 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,493,741
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#848
of 1,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,640
of 331,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#21
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.