Compliant lower limb exoskeletons: a comprehensive review on mechanical design principles.
Maria Del Carmen Sanchez-Villamañan, Jose Gonzalez-Vargas, Diego Torricelli and 2 others
PMID 31072370WHAT IT FOUND
Most reviewed lower limb exoskeletons used compliant actuators with rigid frames.
The review compares design choices for stroke, spinal cord injury and ageing, but reports no patient outcomes.
Key findings
0144 reviewed exoskeletons used compliant actuators and a rigid structure.
026 reviewed exoskeletons used a soft structure. Two used both a soft structure and compliant actuation.
03Most reviewed devices focused on stroke, spinal cord injury or older adults, and only three were specifically designed for children.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
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 is a review of device designs, not a clinical trial, so it cannot show that any exoskeleton improves patient walking, balance or function. The authors excluded devices whose compliant behaviour came only from control, so the findings apply only to mechanically compliant exoskeletons. Technical details were often missing, especially for pneumatic devices and soft exoskeleton user limits. Direct comparison is difficult. The review found no clear relationship between degrees of freedom and pathology or user need. Most devices were designed for adults, and only three were specifically designed for children. Balance was largely overlooked in the reviewed literature.
Declared interests
The supplied text names Horizon 2020 Framework Programme as funder. It does not report author disclosures.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the device counts and weights as evidence that any exoskeleton improves walking, balance or function. This paper reviews mechanical designs, not patient outcomes.