Multicentric investigation on the safety, feasibility and usability of the ABLE lower-limb robotic exoskeleton for individuals with spinal cord injury: a framework towards the standardisation of clinical evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Robotic lower-limb exoskeletons have the potential to provide additional clinical benefits for persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). However, high variability between protocols does not allow the comparison of study results on safety and feasibility between different exoskeletons. We therefore incorporated key aspects from previous studies into our study protocol and accordingly conducted a multicentre study investigating the safety, feasibility and usability of the ABLE Exoskeleton in clinical settings. METHODS: In this prospective pretest-posttest quasi-experimental study across two SCI centres in Germany and Spain, in- and outpatients with SCI were recruited into a 12-session training and assessment protocol, utilising the ABLE Exoskeleton. A follow-up visit after 4 weeks was included to assess after-training outcomes. Safety outcomes (device-related adverse events (AEs), number of drop-outs), feasibility and usability measures (level of assistance, donning/doffing-time) were recorded at every session together with changes in gait parameters and function. Patient-reported outcome measures including the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and the psychosocial impact of the device were performed. Satisfaction with the device was evaluated in both participants and therapists. RESULTS: All 24 participants (45 ± 12 years), with mainly subacute SCI (< 1 year after injury) from C5 to L3, (ASIA Impairment Scale A to D) completed the follow-up. In 242 training sessions, 8 device-related AEs (pain and skin lesions) were reported. Total time for don and doff was 6:50 ± 2:50 min. Improvements in level of assistance and gait parameters (time, steps, distance and speed, p < 0.05) were observed in all participants. Walking function and RPE improved in participants able to complete walking tests with (n = 9) and without (n = 6) the device at study start (p < 0.05). A positive psychosocial impact of the exoskeleton was reported and the satisfaction with the device was good, with best ratings in safety (participants), weight (therapists), durability and dimensions (both). CONCLUSIONS: Our study results prove the feasibility of safe gait training with the ABLE Exoskeleton in hospital settings for persons with SCI, with improved clinical outcomes after training. Our study protocol allowed for consistent comparison of the results with other exoskeleton trials and can serve as a future framework towards the standardisation of early clinical evaluations. Trial Registration https://trialsearch.who.int/ , DRKS00023503, retrospectively registered on November 18, 2020.

[Comparison of acute stroke care pathways-A qualitative multicenter study in three referring hospitals of a stroke network]. / Vergleich von Behandlungspfaden beim akuten Schlaganfall ­ eine qualitative multizentrische Studie in drei zuweisenden Kliniken eines Schlaganfallnetzwerkes.

BACKGROUND: In stroke networks, hospitals that do not provide thrombectomy (referring hospitals) refer patients to specialized hospitals (receiving hospitals) for this specific intervention. In order to improve the access and management of thrombectomy, the focus of research needs to be not only on the receiving hospitals but also on the prior stroke care pathways in referring hospitals. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the stroke care pathways in different referring hospitals as well as the advantages and disadvantages associated with these pathways. METHODS: A qualitative multicenter study was carried out in three referring hospitals of a stroke network. Stroke care was assessed and analyzed by using non-participant observations and 15 semi-structured interviews with employees in various health professions. RESULTS: The following aspects were reported as advantageous within the stroke care pathways: (1) a structured and personal prenotification of the patient by the emergency medical service (EMS) members; (2) a more efficiently organized teleneurology workflow; (3) the provision of the secondary referral to thrombectomy by the same EMS members of the primary referral and (4) the integration of external neurologists into in-house structures. CONCLUSION: The study provides insights into different stroke care pathways of three different referring hospitals of a stroke network. The results can be used to derive potentials for improvement of other referring hospitals; however, this study is too small to provide reliable information about their potential effectiveness. Future studies should investigate whether implementation of these recommendations actually leads to improvements and under which conditions they are successful. To ensure patient-centeredness, the perspectives of patients and relatives should also be included.

"But it's a nice compromise" - Qualitative multi-centre study of barriers and facilitators to acute telestroke cooperation in a regional stroke network.

BACKGROUND: Telemedical services can be used to complement on-site services when demand for specialists exceeds supply or when specialists are not evenly distributed across health systems. Using stroke as an example, this study aimed to explore how patients and staff experience telestroke cooperation in a stroke network in Germany. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative multi-method and multi-centre study combining 32 non-participant observations at one hub and four spoke hospitals with 26 semi-structured interviews with hub and spoke staff as well as stroke patients and relatives. Observation protocols and interview transcripts were analysed to identify barriers and facilitators to telestroke cooperation from the perspectives of staff, patients and relatives. RESULTS: In terms of barriers to telestroke cooperation, we found technological problems, providing the treatment for one patient from two sites, competing priorities between telestroke and in-house duties in the spoke hospitals, as well as difficulties in participating in the teleneurological examination via a videoconferencing system for older and disabled patients. In terms of facilitators, we found an overall very positive perception of telestroke provision by patients, good professional relationships within the network, and sharing of neurological expertise to be experienced as helpful for telestroke cooperation. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend better integration of telemedical services into the care pathway, fostering relationships within the network, improved technological support and resources, and more emphasis within networks, in public awareness efforts as well as in academia on the evaluation of telemedical services from the perspectives of patients and relatives, especially older patients and patients with disabilities.