CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03477123Updated Jul 7, 2020

Evaluation of Robotic Exoskeletons Therapy for Gait Rehabilitation in Patients With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury.

An interventional study of Walking therapy with Exo-H2 exoskeleton in Spinal Cord Injury and Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury, sponsored by Hospital Nacional de Parapléjicos de Toledo. Completed at 1 site in Spain. Open to participants aged 16 Years to 70 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-07-07.

Sponsored by Hospital Nacional de Parapléjicos de Toledo · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
20
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
16 Years to 70 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The objective of the study is to assess the efficacy of the Exo-H2 robotic exoskeleton for walking rehabilitation of people with incomplete spinal cord injury.

Read the detailed description

The recovery of walking ability is a primary concern of rehabilitation programs for people who have suffered anincomplete spinal cord injury. Robotic therapy arises from the new concepts of neuroplasticity. One of the most novel contributions in this field is robotic exoskeletons. However, there is still not enough scientific evidence to support the clinical use of this technology.

The aim of this proposal is to assess the efficacy of a new model of robotic exoskeleton (Exo H2) developed by the CSIC with HNP involvement in the context of HYPER project (Consolider 2009 call) in gait rehabilitation for people with incomplete spinal cord injury. A multicenter study is proposed here, involving the National Hospital of Paraplegics and the Institut Guttmann. Two randomized groups of patients with subacute incomplete spinal cord injury will be defined. In one group, protocol gait rehabilitation based on the Exo H2 will be established and traditional gait therapy will be adapted for control group. Both groups of patients were assessed performing a physical exam including functional gait scales (10 MWT, 6MWT, WISCI II score, SCIM) and a biomechanical gait analysis with kinetic and kinematic techniques. Functional assessment will be carried out before intervention, at the end of the intervention and a follow up six weeks later.

02

Conditions studied

  • Spinal Cord Injury
  • Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury

Keywords

  • Incomplete spinal cord injury
  • Walking
  • Rehabilitation
  • Robotic exoskeleton
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
16 Years to 70 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Incomplete Spinal Cord Syndrome, ASIA scale C or D
  • enough strength in the upper extremities to handle a walker or crutches (triceps brachial muscle balance ≥ 3)
  • Age between 16 and 70 y.o.
  • Heigth: 1.6-1.9m
  • Weigth less than 120Kg
  • Stable medical condition between 6 weeks and 18 months since injury.
  • Subjects must tolerate standing and be included in walking rehabilitation program in the center.
  • Lower limb spasticity should be lower than 3 as measyred by Ashworth scale.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Cardiovascular diseases.
  • Upper limb pathology of any kind.
  • irreducible flexo or arthrodesis in lower limb joints, 2 or more osteoporotic fractures in the lower limbs in the last 2 years
  • Uncontrolled epilepsy.
  • Ulcers sores at the contact points with the exoskeleton.
  • Refuse to participate.
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
20 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Intervention

    Walking therapy with Exo-H2 exoskeleton

    Device: Walking therapy with Exo-H2 exoskeleton

  • No intervention
    Control

    Group receiving conventional walking therapy without robotic exoskeleton

Interventions

  • DeviceWalking therapy with Exo-H2 exoskeleton
05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Lower extremity motor score

    This scale evaluate the ability and force of the patient when attepmting to contract five key lower limb muscles. It is manually measured by the therapist. Range from 0 (no contraction) to 5 (healthy function). The total score summs up the scores of all muscles. In healthy conditions is 50 points.

    Time frame: Change from Baseline Lower Extremity Motor Score at 2 months

  2. Spasticity measured by Ashworth scale

    Manual testing of muscle tone in response to manual mobilization of joints. Range from 0 (healthy response) to 4 (maximum muscle tone).

    Time frame: Change from Baseline Ashworth Scale at 2 months

  3. Ten meters walking test

    This test measure walking velocity on covering ten meters walking in flat, straigth line.

    Time frame: Change from Baseline Ten Meters Walking Test at 2 months

  4. Six minutes walking test

    This test measure walking endurance by measuring the distance covered in six minutes of walking in flat, straigth line.

    Time frame: Change from Baseline Six Minutes Walking Test at 2 months

  5. Time Up-and-Go Test (TUG)

    This test measures the time to complete stand to sit, walk 3 meters and sitting back again.

    Time frame: Change from Baseline TUG Test at 2 months

  6. Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury II (WISCI II)

    WISCI II assess the amount of physical assistance needed, as well as devices required, for walking following paralysis that results from Spinal Cord Injury. The subject is observed by the trained personnel and the WISCI level is recorded on the scale of 0 to 20 at baseline (Baseline WISCI). The subject is observed again at the defined interval (Interval WISCI). The change in score is calculated by subtracting the baseline WISCI from the Interval WISCI, which equals the change in WISCI (Changed WISCI). If a group of subjects are enrolled, medians and means may be calculated.

    Time frame: Change from Baseline WISCI II Scale at 2 months

  7. Questionnaire: Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST)

    The purpose of the QUEST questionnaire is to evaluate how satisfied you are with your assistive device and the related services you experienced. The questionnaire consists of 12 satisfaction items. For each of the 12 items, rate your satisfaction with your assistive device and the related services you experienced by using the following scale of 1 to 5.

    Time frame: Through study completion

Secondary outcomes

  1. Spinal Cord Independence Measure III (SCIM III)

    The SCIM is composed of 19 items that assess 3 domains.1) Self-care, 2) Respiration and sphincter management, 3) Mobility (9 items, scores range from 0-40). The total SCIM scores range from 0 to 100.

    Time frame: Change from Baseline SCIM III scale at 2 months

06

Study locations

1 site
  • National Hospital for Paraplegics
    Toledo, 45071, Spain
07

References and documents

Publications

  • Ditunno PL, Patrick M, Stineman M, Ditunno JF. Who wants to walk? Preferences for recovery after SCI: a longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Spinal Cord. 2008 Jul;46(7):500-6. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3102172. Epub 2008 Jan 22. PubMed 18209742 ↗
  • Esquenazi A, Packel A. Robotic-assisted gait training and restoration. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Nov;91(11 Suppl 3):S217-27; quiz S228-31. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31826bce18. PubMed 23080038 ↗
  • Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22(3-5):281-99. PubMed 15502272 ↗
  • Chen G, Patten C. Treadmill training with harness support: selection of parameters for individuals with poststroke hemiparesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006 Jul-Aug;43(4):485-98. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2005.04.0063. PubMed 17123188 ↗
  • Colombo G, Joerg M, Schreier R, Dietz V. Treadmill training of paraplegic patients using a robotic orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000 Nov-Dec;37(6):693-700. PubMed 11321005 ↗
  • Mantone J. Getting a leg up? Rehab patients get an assist from devices such as HealthSouth's AutoAmbulator, but the robots' clinical benefits are still in doubt. Mod Healthc. 2006 Feb 13;36(7):58-60. No abstract available. PubMed 16515076 ↗
  • Veneman JF, Kruidhof R, Hekman EE, Ekkelenkamp R, Van Asseldonk EH, van der Kooij H. Design and evaluation of the LOPES exoskeleton robot for interactive gait rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007 Sep;15(3):379-86. doi: 10.1109/tnsre.2007.903919. PubMed 17894270 ↗
  • Tefertiller C, Pharo B, Evans N, Winchester P. Efficacy of rehabilitation robotics for walking training in neurological disorders: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):387-416. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2010.04.0055. PubMed 21674390 ↗
  • Zeilig G, Weingarden H, Zwecker M, Dudkiewicz I, Bloch A, Esquenazi A. Safety and tolerance of the ReWalk exoskeleton suit for ambulation by people with complete spinal cord injury: a pilot study. J Spinal Cord Med. 2012 Mar;35(2):96-101. doi: 10.1179/2045772312Y.0000000003. Epub 2012 Feb 7. PubMed 22333043 ↗
  • Aach M, Cruciger O, Sczesny-Kaiser M, Hoffken O, Meindl RCh, Tegenthoff M, Schwenkreis P, Sankai Y, Schildhauer TA. Voluntary driven exoskeleton as a new tool for rehabilitation in chronic spinal cord injury: a pilot study. Spine J. 2014 Dec 1;14(12):2847-53. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.042. Epub 2014 Apr 4. PubMed 24704677 ↗
  • Jackson AB, Carnel CT, Ditunno JF, Read MS, Boninger ML, Schmeler MR, Williams SR, Donovan WH; Gait and Ambulation Subcommittee. Outcome measures for gait and ambulation in the spinal cord injury population. J Spinal Cord Med. 2008;31(5):487-99. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2008.11753644. PubMed 19086706 ↗
  • Ditunno J, Scivoletto G. Clinical relevance of gait research applied to clinical trials in spinal cord injury. Brain Res Bull. 2009 Jan 15;78(1):35-42. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2008.09.003. Epub 2008 Oct 9. PubMed 18848865 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03477123
Lead sponsor
Hospital Nacional de Parapléjicos de Toledo
Collaborators
Institut Guttmann
Responsible party
Angel Gil-Agudo (PhD, MD, Head of Rehabilitation, Hospital Nacional de Parapléjicos de Toledo) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 26, 2018
Start date
Jan 1, 2016
Primary completion
Mar 31, 2020
Completion
Jul 3, 2020
Last update
Jul 7, 2020

Study contacts

Angel Gil-Agudo, PhD, MD
study chair · Head of Rehabilitation Department

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion