PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Shackleton, Claire
AU  - Evans, Robert
AU  - West, Sacha
AU  - Derman, Wayne
AU  - Albertus, Yumna
TI  - Robotic walking for recovery of functional capacity in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury: A randomized pilot trial
AID  - 10.1101/2021.10.24.21265389
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.10.24.21265389
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/26/2021.10.24.21265389.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/26/2021.10.24.21265389.full
AB  - Objective Activity-based Training (ABT) represents the current standard of neurological rehabilitation. Robotic Locomotor Training (RLT) is an innovative technique that aims to enhance rehabilitation outcomes, however, its efficacy in SCI rehabilitation, particularly within a low-middle income setting, is currently unclear. The primary aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of a locomotor training program within XX, in terms of recruitment, attendance, drop-out rates and safety. Secondary aims were to determine the effects of RLT compared to ABT on functional capacity in people with chronic SCI.Design Participants with chronic traumatic motor incomplete tetraplegia (n = 16) were recruited. Each intervention involved 60-minute sessions, 3x per week, over 24-weeks. RLT involved walking in the Ekso GT™ suit. ABT involved a combination of resistance, cardiovascular and weight-bearing exercise. Primary feasibility outcomes included recruitment rate, adherence rate, and adverse events. Validated tests were performed at baseline, 6, 12 and 24-weeks to assess the secondary outcomes of functional capacity.Results Out of 110 individuals who expressed interest in participating in the study, 17 initiated the program (recruitment rate = 15.4 %). Of these, 16 individuals completed the program (drop-out rate = 5.8 %) and attended sessions (attendance rate = 93.9%). There were no significant differences between the intervention groups for lower or upper extremity motor scores (UEMS effect size (ES) = 0.09; LEMS ES = 0.05), back strength (ES = 0.14) and abdominal strength (ES = 0.13) after training. However, both groups showed a significant increase of 2.00 points in UEMS and a significant increase in abdominal strength from pre- to post intervention. Only the RLT group showed a significant change in LEMS, with a mean increase of 3.00 [0.00; 16.5] points over time. Distance walked in the Functional Ambulatory Inventory (SCI-FAI) increased significantly (p = 0.02) over time only for the RLT group.Conclusions Recruitment, attrition and adherence rates of the intervention and outcomes justify a subsequent powered RCT comparing RLT to ABT as an effective rehabilitation tool for potentially improving functional strength and walking capacity in people with incomplete SCI.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialPACTR20160800164714Funding StatementThis study was funded by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (grant number 91421), the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust [grant number 20523] and the University of Cape Town (UCT) Development Grant.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Faculty of Health Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee of University of Cape Town gave ethical approval (HREC 718/2017) for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors