2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) 2018
DOI: 10.1109/embc.2018.8512745
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robotic Exoskeleton Gait Training for Inpatient Rehabilitation in a Young Adult with Traumatic Brain Injury

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Observational studies ( n = 35 ; 40.2%) represented the most frequent study design among the selected studies, followed by pilot studies ( n = 31 ; 35.6%), experimental validations ( n = 15 ; 17.2%) and experimental studies ( n = 6 ; 6.9%). It should also be pointed out that only 10 out of the 87 studies presented a follow-up evaluation after the intervention with the device [19,47,65,[89][90][91][92][93][94][95].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Observational studies ( n = 35 ; 40.2%) represented the most frequent study design among the selected studies, followed by pilot studies ( n = 31 ; 35.6%), experimental validations ( n = 15 ; 17.2%) and experimental studies ( n = 6 ; 6.9%). It should also be pointed out that only 10 out of the 87 studies presented a follow-up evaluation after the intervention with the device [19,47,65,[89][90][91][92][93][94][95].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Exoskeleton-aided locomotion has several advantages over traditional gait training and rehabilitation, including lower exhaustion rates for patients and physiotherapists [12], improved gait motion [16], and expanded terrain and location options for training [6]. Most, but not all, exoskeletons fully support the body weight of the wearer, allowing patients to walk fully upright using proper body mechanics, which potentially strengthens muscles and neural motor skills that would not otherwise be engaged [11,17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Observational studies (n=35; 40.2%) represented the most frequent study design among the selected studies, followed by pilot studies (n=31; 35.6%), experimental validations (n=15; 17.2%) and experimental studies (n=6; 6.9%). It should also be pointed out that only 10 out of the 87 studies presented a follow-up evaluation after the intervention with the device [19,47,65,[89][90][91][92][93][94][95]. The average time elapsed between the study and the follow-up evaluation was 2 months, ranging from 1 week [65] to 1 year [19].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%