Lower limb active exoskeletons, exosuits, assistive devices and specifications: a scoping review.
Robert E Trott, Timothy J Kleinig, Susan L Hillier and 2 others
PMID 42010653WHAT IT FOUND
The review catalogues 467 lower limb devices but reports no patient outcomes.
It maps technical specifications like mass and torque to help clinicians match devices to individual needs, but provides no evidence that any specific device improves rehabilitation.
Key findings
01The review identified 467 devices across 1399 articles, categorising them by type, actuation, and specifications rather than clinical efficacy.
02Device selection requires matching specifications to user needs, as there is no one-size-fits-all solution and commercial availability varies by class.
03Critical usability metrics such as donning time and battery life were poorly reported across the majority of devices, limiting practical assessment.
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 review is purely descriptive of technical specifications and contains no clinical outcome data, effectiveness measures, or safety reporting. Many key usability metrics, including battery life, donning time, and triggering mechanisms, were missing from the majority of device descriptions, limiting the ability to assess practical application. The inclusion criteria focused on active transmission of force, excluding passive orthoses and prostheses, which may be relevant for some patients but were not covered. The review relies on published literature, which may be biased towards devices with successful prototypes or commercial backing, potentially omitting failed or less documented designs.
Declared interests
The text does not explicitly state funding sources or conflicts of interest in the provided excerpts, but notes that 15% of devices were commercial and many were research-only.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the detailed technical specifications as evidence of clinical benefit. This review maps what devices can do mechanically, not what they achieve for patients. A device with high torque and range of motion is not necessarily more effective for rehabilitation than a simpler device, as no outcome data were analysed.
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 →