4.1 Article

Evaluation of a lower-extremity robotic exoskeleton for people with knee osteoarthritis

期刊

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
卷 34, 期 5, 页码 543-556

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2021.1887400

关键词

exoskeleton; knee OA; mobility; pain; physical activity

资金

  1. B-Temia Inc., Quebec, QC, Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A multi-site study evaluated the efficacy of the Keeogo exoskeleton for knee osteoarthritis patients, finding cumulative effects in improving stair time, pain, and function. Improved physical function showed a direct relationship with improved pain and stiffness, suggesting potential for greater usability with additional research.
A multi-site study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of the Keeogo (TM) exoskeleton as a mobility assist device for use in the clinic and at home in people with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Twenty-four participants were randomized in a two-stage cross-over design that evaluated the immediate effects of using the exoskeleton in the clinic and the cumulative effects of training and home use. Immediate effects were quantified by comparing 1) physical performance with|without (W|WO) the device during a battery of mobility tests, and 2) physical activity levels at home (actigraphy) for one month, two weeks W|WO the device. Cumulative effects were quantified as change in physical performance W and WO over time. WOMAC and other self-report scales were measured and usability assessed. There were no immediate effects on physical performance or physical activity at home; however, there were cumulative effects as indicated by improved stair time (p = .001) as well as improved WOMAC pain (p = .004) and function (p = .003). There was a direct relationship between improved physical function and improved WOMAC pain (r = -.677, p < .001) and stiffness (r = .537, p = .007). Weight and battery life were identified as important to usability. A full-scale RCT with more participants, longer study period, and better usage monitoring is warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据