8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Walking faster and farther with a soft robotic exosuit: Implications for post-stroke gait assistance and rehabilitation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          Soft robotic exosuits can improve the mechanics and energetics of walking after stroke. Building on this prior work, we evaluated the effects of the first prototype of a portable soft robotic exosuit.

          Methods:

          Exosuit-induced changes in the overground walking speed, distance, and energy expenditure of individuals post-stroke were evaluated statistically with alpha set to 0.05 and compared to minimal clinically important difference scores.

          Results:

          Compared to baseline walking without the exosuit worn, the <5kg exosuit did not substantially modify walking speed, distance, or energy expenditure when worn unpowered. In contrast, when the exosuit was powered on to provide an average 22.87±0.58 %bodyweight of plantarflexor force assistance during the paretic limb’s stance phase and assist the paretic dorsiflexors during swing phase to reduce drop-foot, study participants walked a median 0.14±0.06 m/s faster during the 10-meter walk test and traveled 32±8 m farther during the six minute walk test.

          Conclusions:

          Individuals post-stroke can leverage the paretic plantarflexor and dorsiflexor assistance provided by soft robotic exosuits to achieve clinically-meaningful increases in speed and distance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage.

          This paper reviews 10 principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity and considerations in applying them to the damaged brain. Neuroscience research using a variety of models of learning, neurological disease, and trauma are reviewed from the perspective of basic neuroscientists but in a manner intended to be useful for the development of more effective clinical rehabilitation interventions. Neural plasticity is believed to be the basis for both learning in the intact brain and relearning in the damaged brain that occurs through physical rehabilitation. Neuroscience research has made significant advances in understanding experience-dependent neural plasticity, and these findings are beginning to be integrated with research on the degenerative and regenerative effects of brain damage. The qualities and constraints of experience-dependent neural plasticity are likely to be of major relevance to rehabilitation efforts in humans with brain damage. However, some research topics need much more attention in order to enhance the translation of this area of neuroscience to clinical research and practice. The growing understanding of the nature of brain plasticity raises optimism that this knowledge can be capitalized upon to improve rehabilitation efforts and to optimize functional outcome.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults.

            To estimate the magnitude of small meaningful and substantial individual change in physical performance measures and evaluate their responsiveness. Secondary data analyses using distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine meaningful change. Secondary analysis of data from an observational study and clinical trials of community-dwelling older people and subacute stroke survivors. Older adults with mobility disabilities in a strength training trial (n=100), subacute stroke survivors in an intervention trial (n=100), and a prospective cohort of community-dwelling older people (n=492). Gait speed, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), 6-minute-walk distance (6MWD), and self-reported mobility. Most small meaningful change estimates ranged from 0.04 to 0.06 m/s for gait speed, 0.27 to 0.55 points for SPPB, and 19 to 22 m for 6MWD. Most substantial change estimates ranged from 0.08 to 0.14 m/s for gait speed, 0.99 to 1.34 points for SPPB, and 47 to 49 m for 6MWD. Based on responsiveness indices, per-group sample sizes for clinical trials ranged from 13 to 42 for substantial change and 71 to 161 for small meaningful change. Best initial estimates of small meaningful change are near 0.05 m/s for gait speed, 0.5 points for SPPB, and 20 m for 6MWD and of substantial change are near 0.10 m/s for gait speed, 1.0 point for SPPB, and 50 m for 6MWD. For clinical use, substantial change in these measures and small change in gait speed and 6MWD, but not SPPB, are detectable. For research use, these measures yield feasible sample sizes for detecting meaningful change.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review of the literature.

              To collect and integrate existing data concerning the occurrence, extent, time course, and prognostic determinants of motor recovery after stroke using a systematic methodologic approach. A computer-aided search in bibliographic databases was done of longitudinal cohort studies, original prognostic studies, and randomized controlled trials published in the period 1966 to November 2001, which was expanded by references from retrieved articles and narrative reviews. After a preliminary screening, internal, external, and statistical validity was assessed by a priori methodologic criteria, with special emphasis on the internal validity. The studies finally selected were discussed, based on the quantitative analysis of the outcome measures and prognostic determinants. Meta-analysis was pursued, but was not possible because of substantial heterogeneity. The search resulted in 174 potentially relevant studies, of which 80 passed the preliminary screening and were subjected to further methodologic assessment; 14 studies were finally selected. Approximately 65% of the hospitalized stroke survivors with initial motor deficits of the lower extremity showed some degree of motor recovery. In the case of paralysis, complete motor recovery occurred in less than 15% of the patients, both for the upper and lower extremities. Hospitalized patients with small lacunar strokes showed relatively good motor recovery. The recovery period in patients with severe stroke was twice as long as in patients with mild stroke. The initial grade of paresis was the most important predictor for motor recovery (odds ratios [OR], >4). Objective analysis of the motor pathways by motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) showed even higher ORs (ORs, >20). Our knowledge of motor recovery after stroke in more accurate, quantitative, and qualitive terms is still limited. Nevertheless, our data synthesis and quantitative analysis comprises data from many methodologically robust studies, which may support the clinician in the management of stroke patients. With respect to early prognosis of motor recovery, our review confirms clinical experience that the initial grade of paresis (as measured on admission in the hospital) is the most important predictor, although the accuracy of prediction rapidly improves during the first few days after stroke. Initial paralysis implies the worst prognosis for subsequent motor recovery. Remarkably, the prognostic accuracy of MEPs appears much higher than that of clinical examination for different subgroups of patients. Copyright 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                101766631
                49549
                IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol
                IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol
                IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology
                2644-1276
                20 May 2020
                2 April 2020
                2020
                18 March 2021
                : 1
                : 108-115
                Affiliations
                [1 ]College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences: Sargent College, Boston University, Boston, MA
                [2 ]Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
                [3 ]Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
                Author notes
                CORRESPONDING AUTHORS: C.J. Walsh and L.N. Awad ( louawad@ 123456bu.edu )
                Article
                NIHMS1592739
                10.1109/ojemb.2020.2984429
                7971412
                33748765
                e04e9780-08bf-436b-aabc-7b012aa5265e

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Categories
                Article

                exosuit,soft robotics,propulsion,walking speed,walking distance,stroke

                Comments

                Comment on this article