Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The loss of standing and walking capabilities in a paraplegic person is most often the result of damage to the spinal cord, either traumatic (accidental) or pathological and has both a somatic and a psychological impact on the quality of life, the risk of depression, and the difficulty of socio-professional reintegration in a society that is not adapted to people with disabilities.
A motorized mechanical exoskeleton is an external device intended to compensate for a muscular or neurological deficiency enabling paraplegics to stand and walk again. The Atalante exoskeleton, designed by Wandercraft company allows patients to stand upright and walk without the aid of crutches.
This early study was the first clinical investigation of the Atalante exoskeleton performed early in the development. It was used to evaluate the device design concept with respect to initial clinical safety and device functionality and guided further device modifications.
The aim of this study was to test the use of the Atalante exoskeleton on 10 patients with complete motor paraplegia (ASIA A and B) with a level of injury between T6 and S1.
In this multi-centric clinical trial, patients were asked to perform between 1 and 2 days of training with Atalante exoskeleton including device training and evaluations (up to 9 hours of training and 3 hours of evaluation per patient).
The primary objective of this study was to assess patients' ability to walk straight- for 10 meters with the Atalante exoskeleton during 10-meters walk test (10MWT).
Within-group differences between the Atalante exoskeleton and the usual walking aid used by the patient in the success rate of the 10MWT were compared by a McNemar test.
The secondary objectives focused on performance evaluation with the Atalante exoskeleton. The assessments performed were:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exoskeleton second | Experimental | This group first perform tests without Atalante exoskeleton and secondly with Atalante exoskeleton. A second randomization is performed inside each group, with half of the patients first performing walk test with the "Continuous" walk and then with the "Push & Swing" walk, and the other half doing the opposite. |
|
| Exoskeleton first | Active Comparator | This group first perform tests with Atalante exoskeleton and secondly without Atalante exoskeleton. A second randomization is performed inside each group, with half of the patients first performing walk test with the "Continuous" walk and then with the "Push & Swing" walk, and the other half doing the opposite. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test with Atalante exoskeleton in "continuous walk" type | Device | The "continuous" walk is smoother and more physiologic than the "push and swing" walk |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| The primary objective of this study was to assess patients' ability to walk straight- for 10 meters with the Atalante exoskeleton during 10-meters walk test (10MWT). | Within-group differences between the Atalante exoskeleton and the usual walking aid used by the patient in the success rate of the 10MWT were compared by a McNemar test. | Day 2 |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Assessment of the superiority of the Atalante exoskeleton compared to the usual aid | Evaluation of walking ability through a 10mWT | Day 2 |
| Assessment of the superiority of the Atalante exoskeleton compared to the usual aid |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Thierry Albert, MD | COS CMPR de Bobigny | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEREMH (Centre de ressources et d'innovation mobilité handicap) | Vélizy-Villacoublay | 78140 | France |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D010264 | Paraplegia |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D010243 | Paralysis |
| D009461 | Neurologic Manifestations |
| D009422 | Nervous System Diseases |
| D012816 | Signs and Symptoms |
Not provided
Not provided
Prospective, multicentric, comparative, randomized cross-over study
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
Evaluation of verticalization ability through a success/failure test in a verticalization test (sit-to-stand movement)
| Day 2 |
| Assessment of the superiority of the Atalante exoskeleton compared to the usual aid | Evaluation of static balance through a success failure in a static standing test without support from the operator (3 x 30s in a static standing position) | Day 2 |
| Assessment of the superiority of the Atalante exoskeleton compared to the usual aid | Evaluation of dynamic balance through a success/failure in a pointing test performed in a standing position without support from the operator (3 pointing sequences) | Day 2 |
| Assessment of the static and dynamic postural stability | Static balance test with measurement of center of pressure displacement | Day 2 |
| Assessment of the static and dynamic postural stability | Dynamic balance test with measurement of the average surface area under the (Center of Pressure position, Center of Pressure velocity) curve | Day 2 |
| Assessment of the perceived effort by the patient | Evaluation of perceived effort by the patient through a Borg CR-10 scale | Day 2 |
| Assessment of perceived safety by the patient | Evaluation of perceived safety by the patient through a 7-point Likert scale | Day 2 |
| Assessment of the overall satisfaction of patients after using the exoskeleton | Assessment of the patient overall satisfaction through a 7-point Likert scale | Day 2 |
| Comparison of the two types of walk | Comparison of the two types of walk on walking ability through the 10mWT | Day 2 |
| Comparison of the two types of walk | Comparison of the two types of walk on perceived effort during the 10mWT through a Borg CR-10 Scale | Day 2 |
| Comparison of the two types of walk | Comparison of the two types of walk on perceived safety during the 10mWT through a 7-point Likert scale | Day 2 |
| D013568 |
| Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |