Exoskeletal-Assisted Training in Veterans With Chronic Stroke: A Pilot Study.
Michael Elliott, Ingrid Lee, Korishma Patram and 9 others
PMID 41834820WHAT IT FOUND
Adding a knee exoskeleton to standard training was safe and feasible for veterans with chronic stroke.
While the small study showed improved walking speed and stair power in the device group, these gains were not significantly different from the control group, so efficacy remains unproven.
Key findings
01The study met safety and feasibility criteria with no serious adverse events and a 63% retention rate, though the sample was very small.
02Participants in the exoskeleton group showed significant within-group improvements in 10-meter walk speed and stair climb power, but there were no significant differences between the groups.
03Trainers reported the device was generally easy to use, though participants with upper limb impairment had difficulty putting it on, and the device required active leg movement to function.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
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 was underpowered with only 10 participants completing, making it impossible to draw firm conclusions about effectiveness. Both groups improved on many measures, so it is unclear if the exoskeleton added any benefit over the standard training protocol. The device used was an earlier model that failed to activate if the user could not advance their leg sufficiently. The study was paused due to the pandemic, which may have affected recruitment and participant anxiety.
Declared interests
The investigators have no financial or nonfinancial disclosures to make in relation to this project.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the exoskeleton caused the improvements seen in the treatment group. The control group also improved on key measures, and there were no significant differences between the two groups, meaning the device's added value is not yet proven.
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 →