PTOTSystematic ReviewJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2022

Upper limb soft robotic wearable devices: a systematic review.

Elena Bardi, Marta Gandolla, Francesco Braghin and 3 others

PMID 35948915

WHAT IT FOUND

Most upper-limb soft robotic suits are still prototypes tested on healthy people, not patients.

Only one study showed motor recovery in stroke survivors. These devices are not ready for clinical use, and their real-world benefit for daily tasks remains unproven.

Key findings

01The vast majority of identified soft robotic upper-limb devices are at low technology readiness levels, with most tested only on healthy subjects or mannequins rather than patients.

02Only one included study evaluated clinical motor recovery in patients, showing improvements in voluntary motor function and reduced spasticity in stroke survivors using a hybrid device combining electrical stimulation and soft robotics.

03Most devices support only one or two degrees of freedom, limiting their ability to assist with the complex variety of movements required for daily activities.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only one included study reported clinical outcomes in patients, making it impossible to draw conclusions about efficacy for rehabilitation or assistance. Most devices were tested on healthy subjects, so their performance in people with motor impairments is largely unknown. The review excluded hand devices, which are critical for many upper-limb functions. The lack of standardized clinical assessment protocols across studies makes it difficult to compare devices or establish best practices. No devices have reached the market, so real-world usability and safety data are absent.

Declared interests

The authors declared no competing interests. The review was not funded by a commercial entity.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the high number of devices or positive results in healthy subjects as evidence that these suits work for patients. Only one small study showed clinical benefit, and most devices are still experimental prototypes tested on healthy people or mannequins.

Read it on PubMed →