BACKGROUND: Powered robotic exoskeletons represent an emerging technology for the gait training of Spinal Cord Injured (SCI) persons. The analysis of the psychological and physical impact of such technology on the patient is crucial in terms of clinical appropriateness of such rehabilitation intervention for SCI persons.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the acceptability of overground robot-assisted walking and its effect on pain and spasticity.
METHODS: Twenty-one SCI persons participated in a walking session assisted by a powered robotic exoskeleton. Pain assessed using a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and muscle spasticity, assessed as subjective perception using an NRS scale and as objective assessment using the Modified Ashworth scale and the Penn scale, were evaluated before and after the walking experience. Positive and negative sensations were investigated using a questionnaire. The patient’s global impression of change (PGIC) scale was administrated as well.
RESULTS: After the walking session a significant decrease in the muscle spasticity and pain intensity was observed. The SCI persons recruited in this study reported (i) a global change after the walking session, (ii) high scores on the positive and (iii) low scores on the negative sensations, thus indicating a good acceptability of the robot-assisted walking.
CONCLUSIONS: The overground robot-assisted walking is well accepted by SCI persons and has positive effects in terms of spasticity and pain reduction.
AachM., CrucigerO., Sczesny-KaiserM., HöffkenO., MeindlR. C., TegenthoffM., SchwenkreisP., SankaiY., & SchildhauerT. A. (2014). Voluntary driven exoskeleton as a new tool for rehabilitation in chronic spinal cord injury: A pilot study. Spine J, 14, 2847–53.
2.
AdamsM. M., & HicksA. L. (2005). Spasticity after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 43, 577–586.
3.
Alcobendas-MaestroM., Esclarín-RuzA., Casado-LópezR. M., Muñoz-GonzálezA., Pérez-MateosG., González-ValdizánE., & MartínJ. L. (2012). Lokomat robotic-assisted versus over ground training within 3 to 6 months of incomplete spinal cord lesion: Randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 26, 1058–1063.
4.
BehrmanA. L., BowdenM. G., & NairP. M. (2006). Neuroplasticity after spinal cord injury and training: An emerging paradigm shift in rehabilitation and walking recovery. Phys Ther, 86, 1406–1425.
5.
BohannonR. W., & SmithM. B. (1987). Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther, 67, 206–207.
6.
BurnsS. P., GoldingD. G., RolleW. A.Jr, GrazianiV., & DitunnoJ. F.Jr (1997). Recovery of ambulation in motor-incomplete tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 78, 1169–1172.
7.
CardenasD. D., BryceT. N., ShemK., RichardsJ. S., & ElhefniH. (2004). Gender and minority differences in the pain experience of people with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 85, 1774–1781.
8.
CatzA., ItzkovichM., SteinbergF., PhiloO., RingH., RonenJ., SpasserR., GepsteinR., & TamirA. (2001). The Catz-Itzkovich SCIM: A revised version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure. Disabil Rehabil263–268.
9.
CrucigerO., SchildhauerT. A., MeindlR. C., TegenthoffM., SchwenkreisP., CitakM., & AachM. (2014). Impact of locomotion training with a neurologic controlled hybrid assistive limb (HAL) exoskeleton on neuropathic pain and health related quality of life (HRQoL) in chronic SCI: A case study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 10, 1–6.
10.
D’AmicoJ. M., CondliffeE. G., MartinsK. J., BennettD. J., & GorassiniM. A. (2014). Recovery of neuronal and network excitability after spinal cord injury and implications for spasticity. Front Integr Neurosci, 8:36.
11.
DitunnoP., & DitunnoJ. (2001). Walking index for spinal cord injury (WISCI II): Scale revision. Spinal Cord, 39, 654–656.
12.
DuffellL. D., BrownG. L., & MirbagheriM. M. (2015). Interventions to reduce spasticity and improve function in people with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury: Distinctions revealed by different analytical methods neural repair, 29(6), 566–576.
13.
EsquenaziA., TalatyM., PackelA., & SaulinoM. (2012). The ReWalk powered exoskeleton to restore ambulatory function to individuals with thoracic-level motor-complete spinal cord injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 91, 911–921.
14.
GuyW. (1976). Clinical global impressions. In ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration.
15.
HarnessE. T., YozbatiranN., & CramerS. C. (2008). Effects of intense exercise in chronic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 46, 733–737.
16.
HussainS. (2014). State-of-the-art robotic gait rehabilitation orthoses: Design and control aspects. NeuroRehabilitation, 35, 701–709.
17.
KirshblumS. C., BurnsS. P., Biering-SorensenF., DonovanW., GravesD. E., JhaA., JohansenM., JonesL., KrassioukovA., MulcaheyM. J., Schmidt-ReadM., & WaringW. (2011). International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury. The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 34, 535–546.
18.
KresslerJ., ThomasC. K., Field-FoteE. C., SanchezJ., Widerström-NogaE., CilienD. C., GantK., GinnetyK., GonzalezH., MartinezA., AndersonK. D., & NashM. S. (2014). Understanding therapeutic benefits of overground bionic ambulation: Exploratory case series in persons with chronic, complete spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 95(10), 1878–1887.
19.
LabruyèreR., & van HedelH. J. A. (2014). Strength training versus robot-assisted gait training after incomplete spinal cord injury: A randomized pilot study in patients depending on walking assistance. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 11, 4.
20.
MazzoleniS., BattiniE., TombiniT., & StampacchiaG. (2015). Effects of robot-assisted locomotor training in patients with gait disorders following neurological injury: An integrated EMG and kinematic approach. Proc. 14th IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, August 11–14, 2015 Singapore, pp. 775–779.
21.
MazzoleniS., TurchettiG., PallaI., PosteraroF., & DarioP. (2014). Acceptability of robotic technology in neuro-rehabilitation: Preliminary results on chronic stroke patients. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 116(2), 116–122.
22.
MehrholzJ., KuglerJ., & PohlM. (2012). Locomotor training for walking after spinal cord injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 14, 11.
23.
MirbagheriM. M., KindigM. W., & NiuX. (2015). Effects of robotic-locomotor training on stretch reflex function and muscular properties in individuals with spinal cord injury. Clin Neurophysiol, 26(5), 997–1006.
24.
MorawietzC., & MoffatF. (2013). Effects of locomotor training after incomplete spinal cord injury: A systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 94, 2297–2308.
25.
PennR. D., SavoyS. M., CorcosD., LatashM., GottliebG., ParkeB., & KroinJ. S. (1989). Intrathecal baclofen for severe spinal spasticity. N Engl J Med, 320, 1517–1521.
26.
SaulinoM. (2014). Spinal cord injury pain. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am, 25(2), 397–410.
27.
SchwartzI., & MeinerZ. (2015). Robotic-assisted gait training in neurological patients: Who may benefit?Ann Biomed Eng, 43, 1260–1269.
28.
ShinJ. C., KimJ. Y., ParkH. K., & KimN. Y. (2014). Effect of robotic-assisted gait training in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury. Ann Rehabil Med, 38, 719–725.
29.
SinghA., TetreaultL., Kalsi-RyanS., NouriA., & FehlingsM. G. (2014). Global prevalence and incidence of traumatic spinal cord injury. Clin Epidemiol, 6, 309–331.
30.
StrausserK. A., SwiftT. A., ZossA. B., KazerooniH., & BennettB. C. (2011). Mobile exoskeleton for spinal cord injury: Development and testing. Arlington: ASME, 2, 419–425.
31.
Sylos-LabiniF., La ScaleiaV., d’AvellaA., PisottaI., TamburellaF., ScivolettoG., MolinariM., WangS., WangL., van AsseldonkE., HoellingerT., ThorsteinssonF., IlzkovitzM., HauffeR., ZanovF., LacquanitiF., & IvanenkoY. P. (2014). EMG patterns during assisted walking in the exoskeleton. Front Hum Neurosci, 8, 1–12.
32.
Van HedelH. J. A., & DietzV. (2010). Rehabilitation of locomotion after spinal cord injury. Restor Neurol Neurosci, 28, 123–134.
33.
WallA., BorgJ., & PalmcrantzS. (2015). Clinical application of the Hybrid Assistive Limb (HAL) for gait training-a systematic review. Syst Neurosc, 9, 1–10.
34.
WilsonJ. R., HashimotoR. E., DettoriJ. R., & FehlingsM. G. (2005). Spinal cord injury and quality of life: A systematic review of outcome measures. Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal, 2, 37–44.
