Lower limb exoskeletons have been developed to enable individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) to walk. Currently, they can be used by people with no motor function (SCI ASIA A or B).
OBJECTIVES:
To present the perspectives of individuals with ASIA C or D incomplete SCI concerning the usability of lower limb exoskeletons to R&D engineers and clinicians working in motor rehabilitation.
METHODS:
A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured individual interviews with three videos showing exoskeletons.
RESULTS:
The thirteen participants (seven women, mean age 50.8 11.7 years) reported both positive and negative perceptions. Three capabilities that can be compensated for and/or improved using an exoskeleton were mentioned, as well as seven life habits. The participants expected lower limb exoskeletons to have 11 technical characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS:
There is an important gap between the expectations of individuals with incomplete SCI and what can be done with existing lower limb exoskeletons in the community. This indicates that the design of future exoskeletons for individuals with incomplete SCI should allow this population to achieve capabilities and facilitate their life habits, besides the ones they already perform using their current assistive technologies.
Shepherd Center. Spinal Cord Injury Details: Levels of Injury [Internet]. c2014 [cited 2014 Jun 20]. Available from: http://www.spinalinjury101.org/details/levels-of-injury.
2.
NoreauLFougeyrollasP. Long-term consequences of spinal cord injury on social participation: the occurrence of handicap situations. Disabil Rehabil. 2000 Mar 10; 22(4): 170-80.
3.
National SCI Statistical Center. Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Facts and Figures at a Glance [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 May 24]. Available from: https://www.nscisc.uab.edu/PublicDocuments/fact_figures_docs/Facts%202014.pdf.
4.
CooperRAFerrettiEOysterMKelleherACooperR. The Relationship Between Wheelchair Mobility Patterns and Community Participation Among Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury. Assist Technol. 2011; 23: 177-83.
5.
SalePFranceschiniMWaldnerAHesseS. Use of the robot assisted gait therapy in rehabilitation of patients with stroke and spinal cord injury. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012 Mar; 48(1): 111-21.
6.
KawamotoHSankaiY. Power assist method based on phase sequence and muscle force condition for HAL. Adv Robot. 2005; 19(7): 717-34.
7.
DollarAMHerrH. Lower extremity exoskeletons and active orthoses: Challenges and state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans Robot. 2008; 24(1): 144-58.
8.
JansenOGrasmueckeDMeindlRCTegenthoffMSchwenkreisPSczesny-KaiserMWesslingMSchildhauerTAFisahnCAachM. Hybrid assistive limb exoskeletonHAL in the rehabilitation of chronic SCI: Proof of concept, the results of 21 patients. World Neurosurg. 2017 Oct 25. pii: S1878-8750(17)31808-9.
9.
LouieDREngJJ. Powered robotic exoskeletons in poststroke rehabilitation of gait: a scoping review. J Neuro Engin Rehabil. 2016; 13: 53.
NeuhausPDNoordenJHCraigTJTorresTKirschbaumJPrattJE. Design and evaluation of Mina: a robotic orthosis for paraplegics. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot; 2011 Jun 29–Jul 1; Zurich, Switzerland.
13.
Cyberdyne Inc. Cyberdyne [Internet]. c2004–2015 [cited 2014 Jul 1]. Available from: http://www.cyberdyne.jp/english/.
14.
REX Bionics Plc. REX Bionics [Internet]. [cited 2014 Jul 1]. Available from: http://www.rexbionics.com/.
BouyerLRouthierFRahnCMcFadyenBJ. Dermoskeletal technology as a means to improve mobility in individuals with multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. 2014 RESNA Annual Conference Proceedings; 2014 Jun 13; Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
17.
B-Temia Inc. Keeogo Embrace Life [Internet]. c2015 [cited 2015 Jan 23]. Available from: http://www.keeogo.com/.
18.
Bionik Laboratories Corp. ARKE [Internet]. c2015 [cited 2015 Jan 23]. Available from: http://www.bioniklabs.com/research-development/arke.
19.
Wandercraft [Internet]. [cited 2015 Feb 12]. Available from: http://www.wandercraft.eu.
20.
ReWalk Robotics. ReWalk Personal Exoskeleton System Cleared by FDA for Home Use [Internet]. 2014 Jun 26 [cited 2014 Dec 5]. Available from: http://www.rewalk.com/news/press-releases/rewalk-personal-exoskeleton-system-cleared-by-fda-for-home-use/.
21.
Spinal Cord Injury Research Evidence [SCIRE]. American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS): International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury [Internet]. c2010 [cited 2015 Dec 8]. Available from: http://www.scireproject.com/outcome-measures-new/american-spinal-injury-association-impairment-scale-ais-international-standards.
22.
ZeiligGWeingardenHZweckerMDudkiewiczIBlochAE. Safety and tolerance of the ReWalkTM exoskeleton suit for ambulation by people with complete spinal cord injury: a pilot study. J Spinal Cord Med. 2012; 35(2): 96-101.
EsquenaziATalatyMPackelASaulinoM. The ReWalk powered exoskeleton to restore ambulatory function to individuals with thoracic-level motor-complete spinal cord injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Nov; 91(11): 911-21.
25.
FarrisRQuinteroHMurraySHaKHartiganCGoldfarbM. A Preliminary Assessment of Legged Mobility provided by a Lower Limb Exoskeleton for Persons with Paraplegia. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014 May; 22(3): 482-90.
26.
SpungenAMAsselinPKFinebergDBKornfeldSDHarelNY. Exoskeletal-Assisted Walking for Persons with Motor-Complete Paraplegia. Force Sustainment: Rehabilitation, Regeneration and Prosthetics for Re-Integration to Duty: Proceedings STO-MP-HFM-228, Paper 6; 2013 Apr; Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. p. 6-1-6-14.
27.
TalatyMEsquenaziABricenoJE. Differentiating ability in users of the ReWalk powered exoskeleton: An analysis of walking kinematics. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot; 2013 Jun 24–26; Seattle, Washington, USA.
28.
FritzHPatzerDGalenSS. Robotic exoskeletons for reengaging in everyday activities: promises, pitfalls, and opportunities. Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Nov 7: 1-4.
29.
LajeunesseVVincentCRouthierFCareauEMichaudF. Exoskeletons’ design and usefulness evidence according to a systematic review of lower limb exoskeletons used for functional mobility by people with spinal cord injury. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016 Oct; 11(7): 535-47.
30.
MaggioniSMelendez-CalderonAvan AsseldonkEKlamroth-MarganskaVLünenburgerVRienerRvan der KooijH. Robot-aided assessment of lower extremity functions: a review. J NeuroEngin Rehabil. 2016; 13: 72.
31.
MillerLEZimmermannAKHerbertWG. Clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in patients with spinal cord injury: systematic review with metaanalysis. Med Devices. 2016; 9: 455-66.
32.
De Vito DabbsAMyersBAMc CurryKRDunbar-JacobJHawkinsRPBegeyA, et al. User-centered design and interactive health technologies for patients. Comput Inform Nurs. 2009; 27(3): 175-83.
33.
Goodman-DeaneJLangdonPClarksonJ. Key influences on the user-centred design process. J Eng Design. 2010; 21(2-3): 345-73.
34.
WuFGMaMYChangRH. A new user-centered design approach: a hair washing assistive device design for users with shoulder mobility restriction. Appl Ergon. 2009 Sep; 40(5): 878-86.
35.
FougeyrollasPCloutierRBergeronHCotéJSt-MichelG. Quebec Classification: Disability Creation Process. International Network on Disability Creation Process-Canadian Society on International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps, INDCP/CSICIDH, Quebec City. 1999.
36.
DemersLWeiss-LambrouRSkaB. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 1996; 8(1): 3-13.
37.
Ekso Bionics. Ekso Bionics’ Suit [Internet]. August 2012 Upgrade 2012 [2014]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzRmNYA8LlY.
38.
ArgoMedTec. ReWalk by Argo – A Life Regained [Internet]. 2008 [2014]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQRQs-N-ZIM.
39.
Rex Bionics. Developing REX, the Hands-Free Robotic Exoskeleton – Hayden Allen 2 [Internet]. 2010 [2014]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uOxtN_Lcr8.
40.
BraunVClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2016; 3(2): 77-101.
41.
QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo: The #1 software for qualitative data analysis [Internet]. Version 10, 2012. Available from: http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx.
42.
HubermanAMMilesMB. Data management and analysis methods. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1994, p. 428-44.
43.
KreftingL. Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. Am J Occup Ther. 1991 Mar; 45(3): 214-22.
44.
Usability Net. What Is Usability? [Internet]. c2006 [cited 2015 Dec 8]. Available from: http://www.usabilitynet.org/management/b_what.htm.
45.
GhobrialGMWangMY. Editorial. The next generation of powered exoskeleton use in spinal cord injury. Neurosurg Focus. 2017 May; 42(5): E16.
46.
WolffJParkerCBorisoffJMortensonWBMattieJ. A survey of stakeholder perspectives on exoskeleton technology. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014; 11: 169.
47.
MatthewsJTBeachSRDownsJde BruinWBMeccaLPSchulzR. Preferences and concerns for quality of life technology among older adults and persons with disabilities: National survey results. Technol Disabil. 2010; 22(1-2): 5-15.
48.
CookAMHusseySM. Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice. St-Louis, MO: Mosby; 1995.
49.
QUIS Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction [Internet]. [cited 2015 Dec 8]. Available from: http://www.lap.umd.edu/quis/.
50.
KirakowskiJ. Software Usability Measurement Inventory SUMI [Internet]. c2011 [cited 2015 Dec 8]. Available from: http://sumi.ucc.ie/fr/.
51.
LewisJR. IBM Computer Usability Satisfaction Questionnaires (CSUQ): Psychometric Evaluation and Instructions for Use. Int J Hum-Comput Int. 1995; 7(1): 57-78.
52.
Purdue Usability Testing Questionnaire [Internet]. [cited 2015 Dec 8]. Available from: http://garyperlman.com/quest/quest.cgi?form=PUTQ.
53.
PirèsAP. Échantillonnage et recherche qualitative: essai théorique et méthodologique. In: PoupartJDeslauriersJPGroulxLHLaperrièreAMayerPPirèsP, eds. La recherche qualitative: Enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques. Boucherville (QC), Canada: Gaetan Morin, Éditeur; 1997. p. 113-72.
54.
Dictionnaire de français Larousse. Stigmatisation [Internet]. [cited 2014 Sep 7]. Available from: http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais.** French definitions were translated in English in the Appendix.
55.
PodsiadloDRicharsonS. The time “Up and Go”: A test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly person. Journal of the American Geriatric Society. 1991; 39: 142-8.
56.
VincentCDemersEMoffetHCorriveauHNadeauSMercierC, et al. Use of an innovative model to evaluate mobility in seniors with lower-limb amputations of vascular origin: a pilot study. BMC Geriatrics. 2010; 10(1): 68.
