The field of robot-assisted physical rehabilitation and robotics technology for providing support to the elderly population is rapidly evolving. Lower limb robot aided rehabilitation and assistive technology have been a focus for the engineering community during the last three decades as several robotic lower limb exoskeletons have been proposed in the literature as well as some being commercially available. Numerous manufacturing techniques and materials have been developed for lower limb exoskeletons during the last two decades, resulting in the design of a variety of robot exoskeletons for gait assistance for elderly and disabled people. One of the most important aspects of developing exoskeletons is the selection of the most appropriate proper material. The material selection strongly influences the overall weight and performance of the exoskeleton robot. The most suitable fabrication method for material is also an important parameter for the development of lower limb robot exoskeletons. In addition to the materials and manufacturing methods, the actuation method plays a vital role in the development of these robot exoskeletons. Even though various materials, manufacturing methods and actuators are reported in the literature for these lower limb robot exoskeletons, there are still avenues of improvement in these three domains. In this review, we have examined various lower limb robotic exoskeletons, concentrating on the three main aspects of material, manufacturing, and actuation. We have focused on the advantages and drawbacks of various materials and manufacturing practices as well as actuation methods. A discussion on future directions of research is provided for the engineering community covering the material, manufacturing and actuation methods.
AlimanN.RamliRHarisSM.Design and development of lower limb exoskeletons: a survey. Rob Auton Syst2017; 95: 102–116.
2.
YoungAJFerrisDP. State of the art and future directions for lower limb robotic exoskeletons. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2017; 25(2): 171–182.
3.
FaustiniMCNeptuneRRCrawfordRH, et al. Manufacture of passive dynamic ankle-foot orthoses using selective laser sintering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2008; 55(2): 784–790.
4.
ShaharFSHameed SultanMTLeeSH, et al. A review on the orthotics and prosthetics and the potential of kenaf composites as alternative materials for ankle-foot orthosis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2019; 99: 169–185.
5.
WojciechowskiEChangAYBalassoneD, et al. Feasibility of designing, manufacturing and delivering 3D printed ankle-foot orthoses: a systematic review. J Foot Ankle Res2019; 12(1): 11.
6.
ValleryHVenemanJFvan AsseldonkE, et al. Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots. IEEE Robot Autom Mag2008; 15(3): 60–69.
7.
Sanchez-VillamañanMDCGonzalez-VargasJTorricelliD, et al. Compliant lower limb exoskeletons: a comprehensive review on mechanical design principles. J Neuroeng Rehabil2019; 16(1): 55.
8.
HussainS. State-of-the-art robotic gait rehabilitation orthoses: design and control aspects. NeuroRehabilitation2014; 35: 701–709.
9.
HussainSJamwalPKGhayeshMH. Single joint robotic orthoses for gait rehabilitation: an educational technical review. J Rehabil Med2016; 48(4): 333–338.
10.
HussainSXieSQLiuG. Robot assisted treadmill training: mechanisms and training strategies. Med Eng Phys2011; 33(5): 527–533.
11.
JamwalPKHussainSGhayeshMH. Robotic orthoses for gait rehabilitation: an overview of mechanical design and control strategies. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2020; 234(5): 444–457.
12.
DengWPapavasileiouIQiaoZ, et al. Advances in automation technologies for lower extremity neurorehabilitation: a review and future challenges. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng2018; 11: 289–305.
13.
CaoJXieSQDasR, et al. Control strategies for effective robot assisted gait rehabilitation: the state of art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys2014; 36(12): 1555–1566.
14.
JinXPradoAAgrawalSK. Retraining of human gait – are lightweight cable-driven leg exoskeleton designs effective?IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2018; 26(4): 847–855.
15.
SulzerJSRoizRAPeshkinMA, et al. A highly backdrivable, lightweight knee actuator for investigating gait in stroke. IEEE Trans Robot2009; 25(3): 539–548.
16.
HaldaneDWCasarezCSKarrasJT, et al. Integrated manufacture of exoskeletons and sensing structures for folded millirobots. J Mech Robot2015; 7(2): 021011.
17.
YandellMBQuinlivanBTPopovD, et al. Physical interface dynamics alter how robotic exosuits augment human movement: implications for optimizing wearable assistive devices. J Neuroeng Rehabil2017; 14(1): 40.
18.
OrtizJPolieroTCairoliG, et al. Energy efficiency analysis and design optimization of an actuation system in a soft modular lower limb exoskeleton. IEEE Robot Autom Lett2018; 3(1): 484–491.
19.
OrtizJRoconEPowerV, et al. Xosoft-a vision for a soft modular lower limb exoskeleton. In: González-VargasJIbáñezJContreras-VidalJ, et al. (eds.) Wearable robotics: challenges and trends. Cham: Springer, 2017, pp.83–88.
20.
DebeurreMThalmanCMHertzellT, et al. Soft robotic AFO for active stroke rehabilitation. Team SR-AFO: Wearracon 2020 Innovation Challenge Competition Application.
21.
KongKJeonD. Design and control of an exoskeleton for the elderly and patients. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2006; 11(4): 428–432.
22.
WangSWangLMeijnekeC, et al. Design and control of the MINDWALKER exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2015; 23(2): 277–286.
23.
SuzukiKMitoGKawamotoH, et al. Intention-based walking support for paraplegia patients with Robot Suit HAL. Adv Robot2007; 21(12): 1441–1469.
24.
BanalaSKKimSHAgrawalSK, et al. Robot assisted gait training with active leg exoskeleton (ALEX). IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2009; 17(1): 2–8.
25.
ChenFYuYGeY, et al. WPAL for human power assist during walking using dynamic equation. In: 2009 international conference on mechatronics and automation, Changchun, China, 9–12 August 2009. New York: IEEE.
26.
EsquenaziATalatyMPackelA, et al. The ReWalk powered exoskeleton to restore ambulatory function to individuals with thoracic-level motor-complete spinal cord injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2012; 91(11): 911–921.
27.
GurrietTFinetSBoerisG, et al. Towards restoring locomotion for paraplegics: realizing dynamically stable walking on exoskeletons. In: 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 21–25 May 2018. New York: IEEE.
28.
ChenBZhongCHZhaoX, et al. A wearable exoskeleton suit for motion assistance to paralysed patients. J Orthop Translat2017; 11: 7–18.
29.
RuthenbergBJWasylewskiNABeardJE. An experimental device for investigating the force and power requirements of a powered gait orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev1997; 34: 203–214.
30.
Contreras-VidalJLGrossmanRG. NeuroRex: a clinical neural interface roadmap for EEG-based brain machine interfaces to a lower body robotic exoskeleton. In: 2013 35th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), Osaka, Japan, 3–7 July 2013. New York: IEEE.
31.
TuckerMRShirotaCLambercyO, et al. Design and characterization of an exoskeleton for perturbing the knee during gait. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2017; 64(10): 2331–2343.
32.
PinaDSFernandesAAJorgeRN, et al. Designing the mechanical frame of an active exoskeleton for gait assistance. Adv Mech Eng2018; 10(2).
33.
SawickiGSFerrisDP. A pneumatically powered knee-ankle-foot orthosis (KAFO) with myoelectric activation and inhibition. J Neuroeng Rehabil2009; 6(1): 23.
34.
EkelemABastasGDurroughCM, et al. Variable geometry stair ascent and descent controller for a powered lower limb exoskeleton. J Med Devices2018; 12(3): 031009.
35.
MavroidisCRankyRGSivakML, et al. Patient specific ankle-foot orthoses using rapid prototyping. J Neuroeng Rehabil2011; 8(1): 1.
36.
VukobratovicMBorovacBSurlaD, et al. Biped locomotion: dynamics, stability, control and application. Vol. 7. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
37.
ZossABKazerooniHChuA. Biomechanical design of the Berkeley lower extremity exoskeleton (BLEEX). IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2006; 11(2): 128–138.
38.
ColomboGJoergMSchreierR, et al. Treadmill training of paraplegic patients using a robotic orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev2000; 37(6): 693–700.
39.
RienerRLünenburgerLJezernikS, et al. Patient-cooperative strategies for robot-aided treadmill training: first experimental results. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2005; 13(3): 380–394.
40.
Kolakowsky-HaynerSACrewJMoranS, et al. Safety and feasibility of using the EksoTM bionic exoskeleton to aid ambulation after spinal cord injury. J Spine2013; 4(3): 3.
41.
ZeiligGWeingardenHZweckerM, et al. Safety and tolerance of the ReWalk™ exoskeleton suit for ambulation by people with complete spinal cord injury: a pilot study. J Spinal Cord Med2012; 35(2): 96–101.
42.
JuszczakMGalloEBushnikT. Examining the effects of a powered exoskeleton on quality of life and secondary impairments in people living with spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil2018; 24(4): 336–342.
43.
SankaiY. HAL: hybrid assistive limb based on cybernics. In: KanekoMNakamuraY (eds.) Robotics research. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2010, pp.25–34.
44.
Pais-VieiraCAllahdadMNeves-AmadoJ, et al. Method for positioning and rehabilitation training with the ExoAtlet® powered exoskeleton. MethodsX2020; 7: 100849.
45.
FarrisRJQuinteroHAMurraySA, et al. A preliminary assessment of legged mobility provided by a lower limb exoskeleton for persons with paraplegia. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2013; 22(3): 482–490.
46.
FournierBNLemaireEDSmithAJJ, et al. Modeling and simulation of a lower extremity powered exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2018; 26(8): 1596–1603.
47.
ZanottoDStegallPAgrawalSK. ALEX III: a novel robotic platform with 12 DOFs for human gait training. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Karlsruhe, Germany, 6–10 May 2013. New York: IEEE.
48.
LuRLiZSuCY, et al. Development and learning control of a human limb with a rehabilitation exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Ind Electron2014; 61(7): 3776–3785.
49.
MeulemanJvan AsseldonkEvan OortG, et al. LOPES II—design and evaluation of an admittance controlled gait training robot with shadow-leg approach. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2016; 24(3): 352–363.
50.
YuHHuangSChenG, et al. Human–robot interaction control of rehabilitation robots with series elastic actuators. IEEE Trans Robot2015; 31(5): 1089–1100.
51.
CherellePGrosuVBeylP, et al. The MACCEPA actuation system as torque actuator in the gait rehabilitation robot ALTACRO. In: 2010 3rd IEEE RAS and EMBS international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics, BioRob 2010, Tokyo, Japan, 26–29 September 2010. New York: IEEE.
52.
AoyagiDIchinoseWEHarkemaSJ, et al. A robot and control algorithm that can synchronously assist in naturalistic motion during body-weight-supported gait training following neurologic injury. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2007; 15(3): 387–400.
53.
HussainSXieSQJamwalPK. Robust nonlinear control of an intrinsically compliant robotic gait training orthosis. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst2012; 43(3): 655–665.
54.
ThalmanCMHertzellTLeeH. Toward a soft robotic ankle-foot orthosis (SR-AFO) exosuit for human locomotion: preliminary results in late stance plantarflexion assistance. In: 2020 3rd IEEE international conference on soft robotics (RoboSoft), New Haven, CT, 15 May–15 July 2020. New York: IEEE.
55.
TsukaharaAHasegawaYEguchiK, et al. Restoration of gait for spinal cord injury patients using HAL with intention estimator for preferable swing speed. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2015; 23(2): 308–318.
56.
TanabeSHiranoSSaitohE. Wearable Power-Assist Locomotor (WPAL) for supporting upright walking in persons with paraplegia. NeuroRehabilitation2013; 33(1): 99–106.
MartínezALawsonBGoldfarbM. A controller for guiding leg movement during overground walking with a lower limb exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Robot2018; 34(1): 183–193.
59.
ChenGChanCKGuoZ, et al. A review of lower extremity assistive robotic exoskeletons in rehabilitation therapy. Crit Rev Biomed Eng2013; 41(4–5): 343–363.
60.
ChouCPHannafordB. Measurement and modeling of McKibben pneumatic artificial muscles. IEEE Trans Robot Autom1996; 12(1): 90–102.
61.
ChoiTYChoiBSSeoKH. Position and compliance control of a pneumatic muscle actuated manipulator for enhanced safety. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol2011; 19(4): 832–842.
62.
HussainSXieSQJamwalPK, et al. An intrinsically compliant robotic orthosis for treadmill training. Med Eng Phys2012; 34(10): 1448–1453.
63.
KollerJRRemyCDFerrisDP. Biomechanics and energetics of walking in powered ankle exoskeletons using myoelectric control versus mechanically intrinsic control. J Neuroeng Rehabil2018; 15(1): 42.
64.
BeylPVan DammeMVan HamR, et al. Pleated pneumatic artificial muscle-based actuator system as a torque source for compliant lower limb exoskeletons. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2014; 19(3): 1046–1056.
65.
KongKBaeJTomizukaM. Control of rotary series elastic actuator for ideal force-mode actuation in human-robot interaction applications. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2009; 14(1): 105–118.
66.
VenemanJFEkkelenkampRKruidhofR, et al. A series elastic- and bowden-cable-based actuation system for use as torque actuator in exoskeleton-type robots. Int J Robot Res2006; 25(3): 261–281.
67.
VenemanJFKruidhofRHekmanEE, et al. Design and evaluation of the LOPES exoskeleton robot for interactive gait rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2007; 15(3): 379–386.
68.
AsbeckATDe RossiSMHoltKG, et al. A biologically inspired soft exosuit for walking assistance. Int J Robot Res2015; 34(6): 744–762.
69.
KimJLeeGHeimgartnerR, et al. Reducing the metabolic rate of walking and running with a versatile, portable exosuit. Science2019; 365(6454): 668–672.
70.
PrattGAWilliamsonMM.Series elastic actuators. In: Proceedings 1995 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. Human robot interaction and cooperative robots, Pittsburgh, PA, 5–9 August 1995. New York: IEEE.
71.
AlqahtaniMSAl-TamimiAAlmeidaH, et al. A review on the use of additive manufacturing to produce lower limb orthoses. Prog Addit Manuf2020; 5(2): 85–94.
72.
ChurchwellRHollanderKWTheisenC. The use of additive manufacturing to fabricate structural components for wearable robotic devices. In: Proceedings of the ASME design engineering technical conference, Boston, MA, 2–5 August 2015. New York: ASME.
73.
BhatiaSKSharmaS. 3D-printed prosthetics roll off the presses. Chem Eng Prog2014; 110(5): 28–33.
74.
TotahDKovalenkoISaezM, et al. Manufacturing choices for ankle-foot orthoses: a multi-objective optimization. Procedia CIRP2017; 65: 145–150.
