ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07767955Updated Aug 17, 2026

Healthcare Professionals' Satisfaction With Various Exoskeleton Models

An observational study in Paraplegia and Tetraplegia, sponsored by University of Sao Paulo General Hospital. Completed at 1 site in Brazil. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-17.

Sponsored by University of Sao Paulo General Hospital · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Other
Time perspective
Cross-sectional
Enrollment
14
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The recent increase in the use of exoskeletons in rehabilitation therapies is bringing important changes to the healthcare professional's work routine. However, despite the importance of user feedback on the development of these novelties, research on this topic remains scarce. The purpose of this study was to compare the satisfaction of healthcare professionals (physiotherapists and physical education instructors) with different exoskeletons. This exploratory case series evaluated healthcare professionals' perspectives and compared the usability of 3 different exoskeleton devices used for gait trainning. A group of 14 rehabilitation specialists with at least six months of experience in exoskeleton operation were interviewed to evaluate qualitative aspects and answered a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire.

02

Conditions studied

  • Paraplegia and Tetraplegia

Keywords

  • Exoskeleton
  • Rehabilitation
  • Medicine; Physiatry
  • Paraplegias
  • User satisfaction
03

In context

Paraplegia

151 studies on the registry are indexed under Paraplegia; 36 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 14 is below the median of 45 across 32 observational studies indexed under Paraplegia.

Browse Paraplegia studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Sao Paulo General Hospital is the lead sponsor of 611 studies on the registry; 98 are open to participants now.

Of its 8 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
All
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Healthcare professionals (HCP) specialized in rehabilitation, with a minimum of six months of experience in exoskeleton operation for the treatment of adult patients with different levels of lower limb impairments.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Healthcare professionals (HCP) specialized in rehabilitation, with a minimum of six months of experience in exoskeleton operation for the treatment of adult patients with different levels of lower limb impairments.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Not being a rehabilitation specialist, having less than six months of experience with the device
05

Study design

Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Cross-sectional
Enrollment
14 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Interventions

  • DeviceExoskeleton

    Grounded exoskeleton

    Also known as: LokomatPro FreeD module

  • DeviceExoskeleton

    Autonomous wearable exoskeleton

    Also known as: Atalante X

  • DeviceExoskeleton

    Wearable device that requires clutches

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. User satisfaction

    A System Usability Scale questionnaire was applied in order to asses a quantitative score for each device

    Time frame: When the participant completed 6 months of experience with the device

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da USP
    São Paulo, São Paulo 05.403-010, Brazil
08

References and documents

Publications

  • R Core Team (2025). _R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing_. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <https://www.R-project.org/>
  • Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud. 2009;4:114-23.
  • Brooke J. SUS: a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind. 1996;189:4-7.
  • Padrini-Andrade L, Balda RCX, Areco KCN, Bandiera-Paiva P, Nunes MDV, Marba STM, Carvalho WB, Rugolo LMSS, Almeida JHC, Procianoy RS, Duarte JLMB, Rego MAS, Ferreira DMLM, Alves Filho N, Guinsburg R, Diniz EMA, Santos JPFD, Testoni D, Silva NMME, Gonzales MRC, Silva RVCD, Meneses J, Goncalves-Ferri WA, Perussi-E-Silva R, Bomfim O. EVALUATION OF USABILITY OF A NEONATAL HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEM ACCORDING TO THE USER'S PERCEPTION. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2019 Jan-Mar;37(1):90-96. doi: 10.1590/1984-0462/;2019;37;1;00019. Epub 2018 Dec 13. PubMed 30569950 ↗
  • Shapkova EY, Pismennaya EV, Emelyannikov DV, Ivanenko Y. Exoskeleton Walk Training in Paralyzed Individuals Benefits From Transcutaneous Lumbar Cord Tonic Electrical Stimulation. Front Neurosci. 2020 May 25;14:416. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00416. eCollection 2020. PubMed 32528238 ↗
  • Elmas Bodur B, Erdoganoglu Y, Asena Sel S. Effects of robotic-assisted gait training on physical capacity, and quality of life among chronic stroke patients: A randomized controlled study. J Clin Neurosci. 2024 Feb;120:129-137. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2024.01.010. Epub 2024 Jan 18. PubMed 38241771 ↗
  • Kerdraon J, Previnaire JG, Tucker M, Coignard P, Allegre W, Knappen E, Ames A. Evaluation of safety and performance of the self balancing walking system Atalante in patients with complete motor spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2021 Aug 4;7(1):71. doi: 10.1038/s41394-021-00432-3. PubMed 34349101 ↗
  • Lee HY, Park JH, Kim TW. Comparisons between Locomat and Walkbot robotic gait training regarding balance and lower extremity function among non-ambulatory chronic acquired brain injury survivors. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 May 7;100(18):e25125. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025125. PubMed 33950915 ↗
  • Zhang L, Lin F, Sun L, Chen C. Comparison of Efficacy of Lokomat and Wearable Exoskeleton-Assisted Gait Training in People With Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Front Neurol. 2022 Apr 13;13:772660. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.772660. eCollection 2022. PubMed 35493806 ↗
  • Mortenson WB, Pysklywec A, Chau L, Prescott M, Townson A. Therapists' experience of training and implementing an exoskeleton in a rehabilitation centre. Disabil Rehabil. 2022 Apr;44(7):1060-1066. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1789765. Epub 2020 Jul 10. PubMed 32649239 ↗
  • Mertz L. The next generation of exoskeletons: lighter, cheaper devices are in the works. IEEE Pulse. 2012 Jul;3(4):56-61. doi: 10.1109/MPUL.2012.2196836. PubMed 22850839 ↗
  • Louie DR, Eng JJ. Powered robotic exoskeletons in post-stroke rehabilitation of gait: a scoping review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Jun 8;13(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s12984-016-0162-5. PubMed 27278136 ↗
  • Lajeunesse V, Vincent C, Routhier F, Careau E, Michaud F. Exoskeletons' design and usefulness evidence according to a systematic review of lower limb exoskeletons used for functional mobility by people with spinal cord injury. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016 Oct;11(7):535-47. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2015.1080766. Epub 2015 Sep 4. PubMed 26340538 ↗
  • Vaughan-Graham J, Brooks D, Rose L, Nejat G, Pons J, Patterson K. Exoskeleton use in post-stroke gait rehabilitation: a qualitative study of the perspectives of persons post-stroke and physiotherapists. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Sep 10;17(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00750-x. PubMed 32912215 ↗
  • Vieira de Melo RF, Utiyama DMO, Goncalves da Mota C, Ribeiro MF, Carvalho PF, de Castro Leite E, Cichon F, Sugawara AT, Battistella LR. Recovery of appetite after using a direct weight-bearing exoskeleton for walking: a case report. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2025 Mar 12;11(1):5. doi: 10.1038/s41394-025-00700-6. PubMed 40075092 ↗
  • Read E, Woolsey C, McGibbon CA, O'Connell C. Physiotherapists' Experiences Using the Ekso Bionic Exoskeleton with Patients in a Neurological Rehabilitation Hospital: A Qualitative Study. Rehabil Res Pract. 2020 Jan 8;2020:2939573. doi: 10.1155/2020/2939573. eCollection 2020. PubMed 32395347 ↗
  • Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009 Aug;8(8):741-54. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4. PubMed 19608100 ↗
09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Oct 2024 to primary completion in Nov 2025, 13 months.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Aug 11, 2026
First posted
Aug 17, 2026
StartActual
Oct 1, 2024
Primary completionActual
Nov 1, 2025
CompletionActual
Nov 1, 2025
Last update
Aug 17, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 17, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07767955
Collaborators
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Responsible party
André Tadeu Sugawara (Professor, University of Sao Paulo General Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 17, 2026
Start date
Oct 1, 2024
Primary completion
Nov 1, 2025
Completion
Nov 1, 2025
Last update
Aug 17, 2026
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2026. 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