Active robotic assistance for standing and sitting: experimental evaluation of handle trajectories.
Marko Ackermann, Lizeth H Sloot, Katja Mombaur
PMID 41645211WHAT IT FOUND
In 15 young able-bodied adults, moving robotic handles reduced hip and knee effort during standing up and sitting down compared with static handles.
Straighter handle paths gave the largest leg reductions, but required more upward force at the handles.
Key findings
01In 15 young able-bodied adults, moving handles reduced peak hip moments compared with static handles: during standing up by 57% for the inverted L path, 74% for the straight path, and 72% for the s-shaped path; during sitting down by 49% for the inverted C path, 54% for the inverted L path, 61% for the straight path, and 77% for the s-shaped path.
02Peak knee moments were also lower with moving handles than static handles: 30% for the inverted L path, 58% for the straight path, and 51% for the s-shaped path during standing up; 50% for the straight path and 49% for the s-shaped path during sitting down.
03Straighter paths (straight and s-shaped) were perceived as providing more support than curved paths (inverted C and inverted L), and the straight path increased peak vertical handle force by 68% compared with static handles during standing up and 48% during sitting down.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used 15 young able-bodied adults, not older adults, frail patients, or people who have difficulty standing up. Only 3 of the 15 participants were female, so gender balance was poor. The static handle condition was not a real passive rollator; the laboratory simulator was heavy and could transmit forces without tipping, so rollator stability and fall risk were not tested. Unassisted standing up and sitting down were collected but not included in the main statistical comparison because their order was not randomized. Subjective support and stability ratings used a non-validated questionnaire. Handle speed was tested only for the s-shaped trajectory, not for all trajectories. Body weight and other factors that can affect transfers were not analysed.
Declared interests
The paper lists funding from Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) (4220). No author conflicts of interest are reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that moving-handle rollators are clinically useful or safe for patients. The participants were young able-bodied adults, the device was a heavy laboratory simulator rather than a passive rollator, and stability or tipping risk was not evaluated.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →