A new lower limb portable exoskeleton for gait assistance in neurological patients: a proof of concept study

Even looking at the website I could get nothing if this does dorsiflexion or preventing ankle rolling, but it does say it is contraindicated for severe spasticity. Seems to only be available in Madrid. Road trip,(Whoops, COVID-19). I would be concerned that this is actually preventing real recovery like AFOs do, but it does allow your hospital to get you out the door faster and declare you are recovered.

Website here: Marsi Active Knee 

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A new lower limb portable exoskeleton for gait assistance in neurological patients: a proof of concept study

• G. Puyuelo-Quintana,
• R. Cano-de-la-Cuerda,
• A. Plaza-Flores,
• E. Garces-Castellote,
• D. Sanz-Merodio,
• A. Goñi-Arana,
• J. Marín-Ojea &
• E. García-Armada 

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation volume 17, Article number: 60 (2020) Cite this article

• Metrics details

Abstract

Background

Few portable exoskeletons following the assist-as-needed concept have been developed for patients with neurological disorders. Thus, the main objectives of this proof-of-concept study were 1) to explore the safety and feasibility of an exoskeleton for gait rehabilitation in stroke and multiple sclerosis patients, 2) to test different algorithms for gait assistance and measure the resulting gait changes and 3) to evaluate the user’s perception of the device.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted. Five patients were recruited (4 patients with stroke and 1 with multiple sclerosis). A robotic, one-degree-of-freedom, portable lower limb exoskeleton known as the Marsi Active Knee (MAK) was designed. Three control modes (the Zero Force Control mode, Mode 1 and Mode 3) were implemented. Spatiotemporal gait parameters were measured by the 10-m walking test (10MWT), the Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.) and Tinetti Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment (gait subscale) before and after the trials. A modified QUEST 2.0 questionnaire was administered to determine each participant’s opinion about the exoskeleton. The data acquired by the MAK sensors were normalized to a gait cycle, and adverse effects were recorded.

Results

The MAK exoskeleton was used successfully without any adverse effects. Better outcomes were obtained in the 10MWT and G.A.I.T. when Mode 3 was applied compared with not wearing the device at all. In 2 participants, Mode 3 worsened the results. Additionally, Mode 3 seemed to improve the 10MWT and G.A.I.T. outcomes to a greater extent than Mode 1. The overall score for the user perception of the device was 2.8 ± 0.4 95% CI.

Conclusions

The MAK exoskeleton seems to afford positive preliminary results regarding safety, feasibility, and user acceptance. The efficacy of the MAK should be studied in future studies, and more advanced improvements in safety must be implemented.