Consumer views of functional electrical stimulation and robotic exoskeleton in SCI rehabilitation: A mini review
- PMID: 39711332
- PMCID: PMC12019081
- DOI: 10.1111/aor.14925
Consumer views of functional electrical stimulation and robotic exoskeleton in SCI rehabilitation: A mini review
Abstract
Background: Functional electrical stimulation (FES) and robotic exoskeletons represent emerging technologies with significant potential for restoring critical physical functions such as standing and walking-functions that are most susceptible after spinal cord injury (SCI). However, the further development and successful integration of these technologies into clinical practice and daily life require a deep understanding of consumer perspectives.
Objective: This review synthesizes consumer perspectives from a diverse range of technology stakeholders, including medical service providers, researchers, and persons affected by SCI-those living with SCI and their caregivers. By capturing this diverse range of perspectives, the review aims to describe the real-world implications, challenges, and expectations associated with FES and robotic exoskeleton technologies.
Methods: Relevant literature was primarily identified through a search in EBSCO, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. The authors supplemented the search by reviewing reference lists including appropriate articles identified by the authors. The PICO question guiding this process was defined as P (persons with SCI and caregivers, researchers, clinicians, and developers), I (use of FES or robotic exoskeletons), C (technology users compared to non-users), and O (stakeholder perspectives and experiences). Each identified article underwent a thorough appraisal, after which findings were summarized to present consumers' viewpoints on FES and robotic exoskeleton technologies.
Results: The review focuses on key areas such as perceived benefits, limitations, implementation barriers, and consumer expectations. The benefits identified are multifaceted, extending from physical improvements, such as enhanced mobility and muscle strength, to psychological gains including increased confidence and sense of independence. However, these technologies also face perceived limitations, often related to accessibility, cost, and usability challenges. Beyond technical issues, implementation barriers are related to factors like insurance coverage and the need for specialized training for both users and providers. Consumer expectations include hope for technological advancements, increased accessibility and affordability, and a desire for more personalized and adaptable solutions tailored to the unique needs of individuals with SCI.
Conclusion: This comprehensive overview of consumer perspectives offers insights into the needs and preferences of the end-users, which are essential for creating user-centric technology and effectively translating research findings into clinical practice.
Keywords: SCI; consumer; emerging technology; implementation barrier; neurorehabilitation; spinal cord injury.
© 2024 The Author(s). Artificial Organs published by International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation (ICAOT) and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with the contents of this article.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Hybrid FES-robot cooperative control of ambulatory gait rehabilitation exoskeleton.J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Mar 4;11:27. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-27. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014. PMID: 24594302 Free PMC article.
-
Users with spinal cord injury experience of robotic Locomotor exoskeletons: a qualitative study of the benefits, limitations, and recommendations.J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Sep 11;17(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00752-9. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020. PMID: 32917287 Free PMC article.
-
A review of methods for achieving upper limb movement following spinal cord injury through hybrid muscle stimulation and robotic assistance.Exp Neurol. 2020 Jun;328:113274. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2020.113274. Epub 2020 Mar 5. Exp Neurol. 2020. PMID: 32145251 Review.
-
Perspectives of wheelchair users with chronic spinal cord injury following a walking program using a wearable robotic exoskeleton.Disabil Rehabil. 2024 Dec;46(25):6204-6212. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2024.2317994. Epub 2024 Feb 15. Disabil Rehabil. 2024. PMID: 38357879
-
Exoskeletons for Personal Use After Spinal Cord Injury.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021 Feb;102(2):331-337. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.05.028. Epub 2019 Jun 20. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021. PMID: 31228407 Review.
References
-
- National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center . Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Demographics at a Glance 2023. 2023. https://www.nscisc.uab.edu/PublicDocuments/Traumatic%20SCI%20Infographic...
-
- Brown‐Triolo DL, Roach MJ, Nelson K, Triolo RJ. Consumer perspectives on mobility: implications for neuroprosthesis design. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002;39(6):659–669. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous