Abstract
Abstract
Background
Soft, wearable, powered exoskeletons are novel devices that may assist rehabilitation, allowing users to walk further or carry out activities of daily living. However, soft robotic exoskeletons, and the more commonly used rigid exoskeletons, are not widely adopted clinically. The available evidence highlights a disconnect between the needs of exoskeleton users and the engineers designing devices. This review aimed to explore the literature on physiotherapist and patient perspectives of the longer-standing, and therefore greater evidenced, rigid exoskeleton limitations. It then offered potential solutions to these limitations, including soft robotics, from an engineering standpoint.
Methods
A state-of-the-art review was carried out which included both qualitative and quantitative research papers regarding patient and/or physiotherapist perspectives of rigid exoskeletons. Papers were themed and themes formed the review’s framework.
Results
Six main themes regarding the limitations of soft exoskeletons were important to physiotherapists and patients: safety; a one-size-fits approach; ease of device use; weight and placement of device; cost of device; and, specific to patients only, appearance of the device. Potential soft-robotics solutions to address these limitations were offered, including compliant actuators, sensors, suit attachments fitting to user’s body, and the use of control algorithms.
Conclusions
It is evident that current exoskeletons are not meeting the needs of their users. Solutions to the limitations offered may inform device development. However, the solutions are not infallible and thus further research and development is required.
Funder
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Rehabilitation
Reference123 articles.
1. Department for Work and Pensions (2020) Family Resources Survey: financial year 2018/2019. Office for National Statistics. https://doi.org/https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-resources-survey-financial-year-201819 (2020)
2. Avan A, Digaleh H, Di Napoli M, Stranges S, Behrouz R, Shojaeianbabaei G, Amiri A, Tabrizi R, Mokhber N, Spence JD. Socioeconomic status and stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and worldwide burden: an ecological analysis from the global burden of disease study 2017. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):191.
3. Office for National Statistics National Population Predictions: 2018-based. https://doi.org/https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/householdprojectionsforengland/2018based. Accessed Nov 2020.
4. Public Health England. Chapter 3: trends in morbidity and risk factors. In: Health profile for England: 2018 [online]. 2018. https://doi.org/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-profile-for-england-2018 (2018)
5. Meulenkamp TM, Cardol M, van der Hoek LS, Francke AL, Rijken M. Participation of people with physical disabilities: three-year trend and potential for improvement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(5):944–50.
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献