Results of the first interim analysis of the RAPPER II trial in patients with spinal cord injury: ambulation and functional exercise programs in the REX powered walking aid

Nick Birch, Jon Graham, Tom Priestley, Chris Heywood, Mohamed Sakel, Angela Gall, Andrew Nunn, Nada Signal, Nick Birch, Jon Graham, Tom Priestley, Chris Heywood, Mohamed Sakel, Angela Gall, Andrew Nunn, Nada Signal

Abstract

Background: The RAPPER II study investigates the feasibility, safety and acceptability of using the REX self-stabilising robotic exoskeleton in people with spinal cord injury (SCI) who are obligatory wheelchair users. Feasibility is assessed by the completion of transfer into the REX device, competency in achieving autonomous control and completion of upper body exercise in an upright position in the REX device. Safety is measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Device acceptability is assessed with a user questionnaire.

Methods: RAPPER II is a prospective, multi-centre, open label, non-randomised, non-comparative cohort study in people with SCI recruited from neurological rehabilitation centres in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. This is the planned interim report of the first 20 participants. Each completed a transfer into the REX, were trained to achieve machine control and completed Timed Up and Go (TUG) tests as well as upper body exercises in standing in a single first time session. The time to achieve each task as well as the amount of assistance required was recorded. After finishing the trial tasks a User Experience questionnaire, exploring device acceptability, was completed.

Results: All participants could transfer into the REX. The mean transfer time was 439 s. Nineteen completed the exercise regime. Eighteen could achieve autonomous control of the REX, 17 of whom needed either no assistance or the help of just one therapist. Eighteen participants completed at least one TUG test in a mean time of 313 s, 15 with the assistance of just one therapist. The questionnaire demonstrated high levels of acceptability amongst users. There were no Serious Adverse Events.

Conclusions: This first interim analysis of RAPPER II shows that it is feasible and safe for people with SCI to use the REX powered assisted walking device to ambulate and exercise in. Participants with tetraplegia and paraplegia could walk and perform a functional exercise program when standing needing only modest levels of assistance in most cases. User acceptability was high.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02417532 . Registered 11 April 2015.

Keywords: Assistive technology; Paraplegia; Physiotherapy, Rehabilitation, Robotics; Powered walking aid; Spinal cord injury; Tetraplegia.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
REX robotic exoskeleton seen from the front and side
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Study Flowchart
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Distribution of spinal cord Injury levels and extent in the study population
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Time of Transfer in First Use - seconds (Mean +/− 95% Confidence Intervals)

References

    1. World Health Organisation, Spinal Cord Injury, Fact Sheet N°384. 2013. Retrieved from: . [Accessed 24 July 2016].
    1. 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;46(7):500–506. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3102172.
    1. Yagn, Nicholas. (1890) Apparatus for Facilitating Walking". US patent 440684 filed February 11, 1890 and issued November 18,
    1. Louie DR, Eng JJ, Lam T. Gait speed using powered robotic exoskeletons after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and correlational study. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation. 2015;12(1):82. doi: 10.1186/s12984-015-0074-9.
    1. . (2017). A Study Testing Safety and Tolerance of the ReWalk Exoskeleton Suit - Full Text View - . [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 Mar. 2017].
    1. Birch N, Graham J, Priestley T. RAPPER II—robot-assisted PhysiotheraPy exercises WITH REX-powered walking aid in patients with spinal cord injury. Spine J. 2016;16(4):S70. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.01.169.
    1. Rex Bionics Ltd. “TM-01 REX Instruction for Use ROW V4.” Auckland, New Zealand. 2016. .
    1. Rex Bionics Ltd. “TM-06 v 1.0 REX P Instruction for Use ROW.” Auckland, New Zealand. 2016.
    1. Galea MP. Spinal cord injury and physical activity: preservation of the body. Spinal Cord. 2012;50(5):344–351. doi: 10.1038/sc.2011.149.
    1. McKinley WO, Jackson AB, Cardenas DD, Michael J. Long-term medical complications after traumatic spinal cord injury: a regional model systems analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(11):1402–1410. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90251-4.
    1. Alcobendas-Maestro M, Esclarín-Ruz A, Casado-López RM, Muñoz-González A, Pérez-Mateos G, González-Valdizán E, Martín JLR. Lokomat robotic-assisted versus overground training within 3 to 6 months of incomplete spinal cord lesion: randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26(9):1058–1063. doi: 10.1177/1545968312448232.
    1. Tweedy SM, Beckman EM, Geraghty TJ, Theisen D, Perret C, Harvey LA, Vanlandewijck YC. Exercise and Sports science Australia (ESSA) position statement on exercise and spinal cord injury. J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20(2):108–115. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.02.001.
    1. Sisto SA, Evans N. Activity and fitness in spinal cord injury: review and update. Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports. 2014;2(3):147–157. doi: 10.1007/s40141-014-0057-y.
    1. Jacobs PL, Nash MS. Exercise recommendations for individuals with spinal cord injury. Sports Med. 2004;34(11):727–751. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200434110-00003.
    1. Kehn M, Kroll T. Staying physically active after spinal cord injury: a qualitative exploration of barriers and facilitators to exercise participation. BMC Public Health. 2009;9(1):168. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-168.
    1. Pons JL. Rehabilitation exoskeletal robotics. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine. 2010;29(3):57–63. doi: 10.1109/MEMB.2010.936548.
    1. Wolff J, Parker C, Borisoff J, Mortenson WB, Mattie J. A survey of stakeholder perspectives on exoskeleton technology. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation. 2014;11(1):169. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-169.
    1. Yang JF, Musselman KE. Training to achieve over ground walking after spinal cord injury: a review of who, what, when, and how. The journal of spinal cord medicine. 2012;35(5):293–304. doi: 10.1179/2045772312Y.0000000036.
    1. Asselin P, Knezevic S, Kornfeld S, Cirnigliaro C, Agranova-Breyter I, Bauman WA. Heart rate and oxygen demand of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in persons with paraplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(2):147. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2014.02.0060.
    1. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “up & go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39(2):142–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x.
    1. Or CK, Karsh BT. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(4):550–560. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2888.
    1. Vaziri DD, Aal K, Ogonowski C, Von Rekowski T, Kroll M, Marston HR, et al. Exploring user experience and technology acceptance for a fall prevention system: results from a randomized clinical trial and a living lab. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2016;13(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s11556-016-0165-z.
    1. Higuchi Y, Kitamura S, Kawashima N, Nakazawa K, Iwaya T, Yamasaki M. Cardiorespiratory responses during passive walking-like exercise in quadriplegics. Spinal Cord. 2006;44(8):480–486. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101875.
    1. Miller LE, Zimmermann AK, Herbert WG. Clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in patients with spinal cord injury: systematic review with meta-analysis. Medical devices (Auckland, NZ) 2016;9:455.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다