Healthcare Professionals' Satisfaction With Various Exoskeleton Models

NCT07767955 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: 69679423.3.0000.0068
• Study Type: observational
• Target: 14
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief 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.

Conditions

Paraplegia and Tetraplegia

Keywords

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

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• User satisfaction

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

  When the participant completed 6 months of experience with the device

Interventions

Exoskeleton DEVICE

Grounded exoskeleton

Also known as: LokomatPro FreeD module

Eligibility Criteria

• Sex: all
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)
• 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.

You may qualify if:

• 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.

You may not qualify if:

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

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Sao Paulo General Hospital: lead
• Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico: collaborator

Study Sites (1)

Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da USP

São Paulo, São Paulo, 05.403-010, Brazil

Location

Related Publications (17)

• R Core Team (2025). _R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing_. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <https://www.R-project.org/>

  BACKGROUND

• Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud. 2009;4:114-23.

  BACKGROUND

• Brooke J. SUS: a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind. 1996;189:4-7.

  BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 30569950 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 32528238 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 38241771 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 34349101 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 33950915 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 35493806 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 32649239 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 22850839 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 27278136 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 26340538 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 32912215 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 40075092 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 32395347 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 19608100 BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Paraplegia; Quadriplegia

Interventions

Exoskeleton Device

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Paralysis; Neurologic Manifestations; Nervous System Diseases; Signs and Symptoms; Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Equipment and Supplies

Study Design

• Study Type: observational
• Observational Model: OTHER
• Time Perspective: CROSS SECTIONAL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Professor

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: August 11, 2026
• First Posted: August 17, 2026
• Study Start: October 1, 2024
• Primary Completion: November 1, 2025
• Study Completion: November 1, 2025
• Last Updated: August 17, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-08

Locations

BR (1)