Clinical utility of the over-ground bodyweight-supporting walking system Andago in children and youths with gait impairments

Hubertus J A van Hedel, Irene Rosselli, Sandra Baumgartner-Ricklin, Hubertus J A van Hedel, Irene Rosselli, Sandra Baumgartner-Ricklin

Abstract

Background: The Andago is a rehabilitation robot that allows training walking over-ground while providing bodyweight unloading (BWU). We investigated the practicability, acceptability, and appropriateness of the device in children with gait impairments undergoing neurorehabilitation. Concerning appropriateness, we investigated whether (i) stride-to-stride variability of the stride time and inter-joint coordination was higher when walking over-ground in Andago versus treadmill walking, and (ii) activation of antigravity leg muscles decreased with higher levels of BWU.

Methods: Eighteen children and adolescents with gait impairments participated in three sessions. Practicability was assessed by determining the time needed to get a patient in and out of Andago, the accuracy of the BWU system, and other aspects. Acceptability was assessed by patients responding to questions, while six therapists filled out the System Usability Scale. To determine appropriateness, the participants were equipped with surface electromyography (sEMG) electrodes, electrogoniometers and accelerometers. Various parameters were compared between walking over-ground and on a treadmill, and between walking with three different levels of BWU (median: 20%, 35% and 50% of the bodyweight) over-ground.

Results: Practicability: the average time needed to get in and out of Andago amounted to 60 s and 16 s, respectively. The BWU system seemed accurate, especially at higher levels. We experienced no technical difficulties and Andago prevented 12 falls. However, participants had difficulties walking through a door without bumping into it. Acceptability: after the second session, nine participants felt safer walking in Andago compared to normal walking, 15 preferred walking in Andago compared to treadmill walking, and all wanted to train again with Andago. Therapists rated the usability of the Andago as excellent. Appropriateness: stride-to-stride variability of stride duration and inter-joint coordination was higher in Andago compared to treadmill walking. sEMG activity was not largely influenced by the levels of BWU investigated in this study, except for a reduced M. Gluteus Medius activity at the highest level of BWU tested.

Conclusions: The Andago is a practical and well-accepted device to train walking over-ground with BWU in children and adolescents with gait impairments safely. The system allows individual stride-to-stride variability of temporospatial gait parameters without affecting antigravity muscle activity strongly.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03787199.

Keywords: Bodyweight unloading; Cerebral palsy; Feasibility; Over-ground bodyweight support; Pediatric neurorehabilitation; Practicability; Rehabilitation technology; Stride-to-stride variability.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. van Hedel chairs a network, the Advanced Robotic Therapy Integrated Centers (ARTIC). The network receives financial and personal support from the company Hocoma, who is also the company commercializing the Andago. The company had no influence on any part of this work. The authors report no further competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Andago and custom-made pressure detection system. a Andago with its various components. b Photo, and c schematic drawing of handrail equipped with custom-made pressure force detection system. The middle band of each sensor was covered with a stripe (‘force guiding layer’) to increase the thickness of the sensor in the recording area. Sensors and stripes were covered with tape (to improve robustness), and a tube was inserted around the bar to decouple support and grasping forces. BWU bodyweight unloading
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Study procedures. Schematic drawing showing the study procedures. At appointment 1, patient characteristics and functional measures were assessed. Participants were able to practice walking with Andago and on the treadmill. Finally, some questions were asked. At appointment 2, we evaluated the accuracy of the bodyweight unloading system, allowed practicing, and again asked participants about their acceptability of Andago. At appointment 3, participants performed first the 10 MWT at maximal speed twice. Then, EMG electrodes, accelerometers, and goniometers were mounted, after which the measurements in Andago and on the treadmill were performed at the reference bodyweight unloading level (BWUref). This was followed by walking in Andago with the two other BWU levels. Finally, the 10MWT at maximal speed was repeated twice again. MMT manual muscle testing, SCALE selective control assessment of the lower extremity, 10MWTss 10-m walk test at self-selected speed, 10MWT max 10-m walk test at maximal speed, BWU bodyweight unloading, FMS functional mobility scale, GFAQ Gillette functional assessment questionnaire walking scale
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Practicability aspects of the Andago. a Average time [s] with standard deviation required to get patients in and out of Andago. bd Comparison of the bodyweight unloading (BWU) as set in Andago compared to the actual values for conditions of 25%, 50%, and 75% of BWU, respectively. BWU, bodyweight unloading
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Acceptability of Andago by participants and therapists. Pie-charts showing the number of participants who a felt safer walking in Andago compared to normal walking, b preferred to train with Andago compared to treadmill walking, and c would like to train again with Andago. d Individual patient responses, whether it was cool training in Andago. Results from session 1 are colored in blue, from session 2 in red. e Individual System Usability Scale (SUS) scores for six therapists (Th1-6). Average and standard deviation (SD) are visualized with red crossing lines; the percentile score (displayed by the red up/down arrow) was calculated and interpreted in line with Bangor et al. [29]. SD standard deviation, Th therapist
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Individual example. Adolescent participant walking a in the Andago and b on the treadmill. Stride-to-stride variability of the stride time between a and b is shown in (c; red for the Andago, orange for the treadmill). Variability over 30 strides in hip-knee inter-joint coordination (d and f) and (e) muscle activity of the M. Gluteus Medius. The participant and his parents provided (written) consent for publication
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Appropriateness of Andago. a Participants walked with higher stride-to-stride variability in stride time in Andago when compared to on the treadmill. b Also, the variability in inter-joint coordination between the hip and knee and the knee and ankle were higher when walking in Andago compared to the treadmill. c Antigravity leg muscle activity during the stance phase. CV coefficient of variation, RMS root mean square, EMG electromyography, M. Musculus, Ref reference bodyweight unloading (BWU); Ref + 15% or Ref + 30%, reference BWU plus additional 15% or 30%, respectively

References

    1. Biringen Z, Emde RN, Campos JJ, Appelbaum MI. Affective reorganization in the infant, the mother, and the dyad: the role of upright locomotion and its timing. Child Dev. 1995;66(2):499–514. doi: 10.2307/1131593.
    1. Hidler J, Brennan D, Black I, Nichols D, Brady K, Nef T. ZeroG: overground gait and balance training system. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):287–298. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2010.05.0098.
    1. Plooij M, Keller U, Sterke B, Komi S, Vallery H, von Zitzewitz J. Design of RYSEN: an intrinsically safe and low-power three-dimensional overground body weight support. IEEE Robot Autom Lett. 2018;3(3):2253–2260. doi: 10.1109/LRA.2018.2812913.
    1. Vallery H, Lutz P, von Zitzewitz J, Rauter G, Fritschi M, Everarts C, et al. Multidirectional transparent support for overground gait training. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2013;2013:6650512. doi: 10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650512.
    1. Bayon C, Lerma S, Ramirez O, Serrano JI, Del Castillo MD, Raya R, et al. Locomotor training through a novel robotic platform for gait rehabilitation in pediatric population: short report. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s12984-016-0206-x.
    1. Bayón C, Ramírez O, Del Castillo MD, Serrano JL, Raya R, Belda-Lois JM, et al. CPWalker: robotic platform for gait rehabilitation in patients with cerebral palsy. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) 2016. Stockholm; 2016, pp 3736–41.
    1. Patton J, Brown DA, Peshkin M, Santos-Munne JJ, Makhlin A, Lewis E, et al. KineAssist: design and development of a robotic overground gait and balance therapy device. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2008;15(2):131–139. doi: 10.1310/tsr1502-131.
    1. Smart A. A multi-dimensional model of clinical utility. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18(5):377–382. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl034.
    1. Hollman JH, Watkins MK, Imhoff AC, Braun CE, Akervik KA, Ness DK. A comparison of variability in spatiotemporal gait parameters between treadmill and overground walking conditions. Gait Posture. 2016;43:204–209. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.09.024.
    1. Harris-Love ML, Forrester LW, Macko RF, Silver KH, Smith GV. Hemiparetic gait parameters in overground versus treadmill walking. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2001;15(2):105–112. doi: 10.1177/154596830101500204.
    1. Awai L, Franz M, Easthope CS, Vallery H, Curt A, Bolliger M. Preserved gait kinematics during controlled body unloading. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s12984-017-0239-9.
    1. Fischer AG, Debbi EM, Wolf A. Effects of body weight unloading on electromyographic activity during overground walking. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2015;25(4):709–714. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.05.001.
    1. Macefield R. How to specify the participant group size for usability studies: a practitioner’s guide. J Usability Stud. 2009;5(1):34–45.
    1. Hocoma AG. Rechtshinweise [legal notes]. . Accessed 27 Jan 2021.
    1. Cuthbert SC, Goodheart GJ., Jr On the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing: a literature review. Chiropr Osteopat. 2007;15:4. doi: 10.1186/1746-1340-15-4.
    1. Balzer J, Marsico P, Mitteregger E, van der Linden ML, Mercer TH, van Hedel HJ. Construct validity and reliability of the selective control assessment of the lower extremity in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016;58(2):167–172. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12805.
    1. Chrysagis N, Skordilis EK, Koutsouki D. Validity and clinical utility of functional assessments in children with cerebral palsy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(2):369–374. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.10.025.
    1. Graser JV, Letsch C, van Hedel HJA. Reliability of timed walking tests and temporo-spatial gait parameters in youths with neurological gait disorders. BMC Neurol. 2016;16:15. doi: 10.1186/s12883-016-0538-y.
    1. Ammann-Reiffer C, Bastiaenen CHG, de Bie RA, van Hedel HJA. Interrater reliability of two gait performance measures in children with neuromotor disorders across two different settings. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2017;59(11):1158–1163. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.13525.
    1. Ammann-Reiffer C, Bastiaenen CHG, Kloti C, van Hedel HJA. Concurrent validity of two gait performance measures in children with neuromotor disorders. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2019;39(2):181–192. doi: 10.1080/01942638.2017.1420003.
    1. Ottenbacher KJ, Taylor ET, Msall ME, Braun S, Lane SJ, Granger CV, et al. The stability and equivalence reliability of the functional independence measure for children (WeeFIM) Dev Med Child Neurol. 1996;38(10):907–916. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1996.tb15047.x.
    1. Hocoma AG. Andago® V2.0 Benutzerhandbuch [User manual]. Document number 31886, Version 2016.02.28, p. 85.
    1. Brook J. SUS: a "quick and dirty" usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland AL, editors. Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor and Francis; 1996.
    1. van Hedel HJ, Tomatis L, Muller R. Modulation of leg muscle activity and gait kinematics by walking speed and bodyweight unloading. Gait Posture. 2006;24(1):35–45. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.06.015.
    1. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000;10(5):361–374. doi: 10.1016/s1050-6411(00)00027-4.
    1. Konig N, Singh NB, von Beckerath J, Janke L, Taylor WR. Is gait variability reliable? An assessment of spatio-temporal parameters of gait variability during continuous overground walking. Gait Posture. 2014;39(1):615–617. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.06.014.
    1. Chiu SL, Chou LS. Effect of walking speed on inter-joint coordination differs between young and elderly adults. J Biomech. 2012;45(2):275–280. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.10.028.
    1. De Luca CJ, Gilmore LD, Kuznetsov M, Roy SH. Filtering the surface EMG signal: movement artifact and baseline noise contamination. J Biomech. 2010;43(8):1573–1579. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.01.027.
    1. Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2008;24(6):574–594. doi: 10.1080/10447310802205776.
    1. Bizovicar N, Matjacic Z, Stanonik I, Goljar N. Overground gait training using a motorized assistive device in patients with severe disabilities after stroke. Int J Rehabil Res. 2017;40(1):46–52. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000199.
    1. Capo-Lugo CE, Mullens CH, Brown DA. Maximum walking speeds obtained using treadmill and overground robot system in persons with post-stroke hemiplegia. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012;9:80. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-80.
    1. Jennings KD, Connors RE, Stegman CE. Does a physical handicap alter the development of mastery motivation during the preschool years? J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1988;27(3):312–317. doi: 10.1097/00004583-198805000-00008.
    1. Messier J, Ferland F, Majnemer A. Play behavior of school age children with intellectual disability: their capacities, interests and attitude. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2008;20:193–207. doi: 10.1007/s10882-007-9089-x.
    1. Phelan SK, Gibson BE, Wright FV. What is it like to walk with the help of a robot? Children's perspectives on robotic gait training technology. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(24):2272–2281. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1019648.
    1. Stansfield B, Hawkins K, Adams S, Bhatt H. A mixed linear modelling characterisation of gender and speed related changes in spatiotemporal and kinematic characteristics of gait across a wide speed range in healthy adults. Med Eng Phys. 2018;60:94–102. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2018.07.015.
    1. Katz-Leurer M, Rotem H, Keren O, Meyer S. Balance abilities and gait characteristics in post-traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy and typically developed children. Dev Neurorehabil. 2009;12(2):100–105. doi: 10.1080/17518420902800928.
    1. Dingwell JB, Cusumano JP, Cavanagh PR, Sternad D. Local dynamic stability versus kinematic variability of continuous overground and treadmill walking. J Biomech Eng. 2001;123(1):27–32. doi: 10.1115/1.1336798.
    1. Chiu SL, Chang CC, Chou LS. Inter-joint coordination of overground versus treadmill walking in young adults. Gait Posture. 2015;41(1):316–318. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.09.015.
    1. Mun KR, Lim SB, Guo Z, Yu H. Biomechanical effects of body weight support with a novel robotic walker for over-ground gait rehabilitation. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2017;55(2):315–326. doi: 10.1007/s11517-016-1515-8.
    1. Fenuta AM, Hicks AL. Muscle activation during body weight-supported locomotion while using the ZeroG. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(1):51–58. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2013.01.0005.
    1. van Hedel HJ, Dietz V. Rehabilitation of locomotion after spinal cord injury. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2010;28(1):123–134. doi: 10.3233/RNN-2010-0508.
    1. Bernshteĭn NA. The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1967.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel