Effect of using of a lower-extremity exoskeleton on disability of people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Although ongoing exercise is known to reduce disability in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), participation in lower-extremity exercise programs can be limited by their existing mobility impairments. Lower-extremity exoskeletons could address this problem by facilitating home and community locomotion and enhancing exercise capability but little data is available on the potential of this technology for reducing disability of people with MS. METHODS: We evaluated the Keeogo™ exoskeleton for people with MS using an open-label randomised cross-over design. The trial design allowed us to quantify rehabilitation effects (tested without device) and training effects (tested with device) using functional outcomes: 6-minute walk test (6MWT), timed stair test (TST), and timed up-and-go (TUG). Baseline and post-study self-report instruments included Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36 (SF36), MS Walking Scale (MSWS), and others. Amount of home use was documented by daily activity log. Partial correlation analysis was used to explore the relationships between changes in functional outcomes and self-report disability, controlling for amount of home use of the device. RESULTS: Twenty-nine participants with MS completed the trial. Change scores for MSWS, SF36 physical function and SF36 emotional well-being correlated positively with changes in 6MWT which was explained by amount of home use. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits in physical functioning and emotional well-being from using the exoskeleton at home were linked to amount of device usage. Low-profile robotic exoskeletons could be used to deliver facilitated exercise while assisting with locomotor activities of daily living, such as walking and stair climbing in the home and community environment.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONExoskeletons for home use may have the potential to benefit people with MS in terms of physical functioning and emotional well-being.The benefits in physical functioning and emotional well-being appeared to be linked to amount of usage.Exoskeletons might be useful for delivering facilitated exercise while assisting with walking and stair climbing in the home.

EMG Activity With Use of a Hands-Free Single Crutch vs a Knee Scooter.

BACKGROUND: Foot and ankle injuries frequently require a period of nonweightbearing, resulting in muscle atrophy. Our previous study compared a hands-free single crutch (HFSC) to standard axillary crutches and found increased muscle recruitment and intensity while using the HFSC. Knee scooters are another commonly prescribed nonweightbearing device. The purpose of this study is to examine the electromyographic (EMG) differences between an HFSC and knee scooter, in conjunction with device preference and perceived exertion. METHODS: A randomized crossover study was performed using 30 noninjured young adults. Wireless surface EMG electrodes were placed on the belly of the rectus femoris (RF), vastus lateralis (VL), lateral gastrocnemius (LG), and gluteus maximus (GM). Participants then ambulated along a 20-m walking area while 15 seconds of the gait cycle was recorded across 3 conditions: walking with a knee scooter, an HFSC, and with no assistive device. Mean muscle activity and peak EMG activity were recorded for each ambulatory modality. Immediately following testing, patient exertion and device preference was recorded. RESULTS: The RF, LG, and GM showed increased peak EMG activity percentage, and the LG showed increased mean muscle activity while using the HFSC compared with the knee scooter. When comparing the knee scooter and HFSC to walking, both showed increased muscle activity in the RF, VL, and LG but no difference in the GM. There was no statistical difference in participant preference, whereas the HFSC had a statistically significant higher perceived exertion than the knee scooter (P < .001). CONCLUSION: In this group of young, healthy noninjured volunteers, the HFSC demonstrated increased peak EMG activity in most muscle groups tested compared with the knee scooter. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.