Evidence Hub

Robotic Walking to Mitigate Bone Mineral Density Decline and Adverse Body Composition in Individuals With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

Shackleton C, Evans R, West S, Derman W, Albertus Y

American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation, 2022

16 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine whether 24 wks of robotic locomotor training or activity-based training was sufficient time to induce bone mineral density and body composition changes in individuals with spinal cord injury. This study reports the secondary analysis of a randomized pilot trial.

DESIGN: Participants with chronic motor incomplete tetraplegia ( N = 16) were recruited. Interventions involved 60-min sessions, 3× per week, over 24 wks. Robotic locomotor training involved walking in the Ekso GT suit. Activity-based training involved a combination of resistance, cardiovascular, and weight-bearing exercise.

RESULTS: Hip bone mineral density was maintained during robotic locomotor training; however, it was significantly reduced ( P = 0.04, effect size = 0.86) during activity-based training by 0.03 (-0.29 to 0.23) g/cm 2 after intervention. Both interventions improved arm fat-free soft tissue mass, but neither group experienced changes in leg fat-free soft tissue mass. The activity-based training group had a significant decrease in visceral adipose tissue ( P = 0.04, effect size = 0.72) and gynoid fat mass ( P = 0.01, effect size = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-four weeks of robotic locomotor training is possibly a sufficient duration to prevent the progressive decline of bone mineral density usually occurring in this population. A longitudinal period of activity-based training serves as an effective rehabilitation strategy to reduce indices of fat mass in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 16 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free