Activity-based training with the Myosuit: a safety and feasibility study across diverse gait disorders.
Florian Leander Haufe, Kai Schmidt, Jaime Enrique Duarte and 3 others
PMID 33032627WHAT IT FOUND
Training with the Myosuit exosuit was safe and feasible for most participants with diverse gait disorders.
Walking speed and endurance improved after several sessions, but this likely reflects adaptation to the device rather than clinical efficacy.
Key findings
01No adverse events occurred during the study sessions, and skin checks revealed no damage or bruises.
02Eight of twelve participants completed all five training sessions, with dropouts mostly unrelated to the study itself.
03Median walking speed was 22% faster than baseline by the fourth session, though initial performance was often slower as users adapted.
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
This was a small, uncontrolled case series with no comparison group, so it cannot determine if the Myosuit is better than conventional therapy. The observed improvements in walking speed and endurance may be due to motor adaptation to the device or the effects of the 45-minute physiotherapy sessions, rather than a specific therapeutic effect of the robot. Participants were recruited via referrals and word of mouth, which may have biased the sample toward those already motivated to try robotic assistance. The study did not assess intrinsic motor performance changes after removing the device, so it is unclear if any gains persisted without assistance.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Center for Clinical Movement Analysis, and MyoSwiss AG, the company that manufactures the Myosuit.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the 22% increase in walking speed by session four as evidence of clinical efficacy. The authors state this trend likely reflects familiarization and tolerance to the device, not a therapeutic improvement in underlying motor function, especially since there was no control group to compare against conventional therapy.