Robot-assisted gait training for individuals with severe acquired brain injury: a scoping review.
Vibeke Wagner, Jakob Rud Sørensen, Christina Kruuse, Ingrid Poulsen, Fin Biering-Sørensen, Christian Gunge Riberholt
Brain Injury May 5, 2025 DOI: 10.1080/02699052.2025.2490285 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Scoping review Randomized Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 162 |
| Population | Adults with severe acquired brain injury and impaired consciousness or cognitive functioning |
| Intervention | Robot-assisted gait training |
| Keywords | Brain injury Disorders of consciousness Rehabilitation technologies Robot-assisted gait training Stroke Neurorehabilitation Robotic therapy Brain recovery Assistive technology Gait rehabilitation |
| Citations | 3 |
| Key findings | Robot-assisted gait training shows potential for improving physical recovery and arousal in non-ambulatory individuals with severe brain injury, but the evidence is limited and standardized outcome measures are lacking. |
Abstract
Early out-of-bed mobilization is recommended for individuals with severe acquired brain injury and impaired consciousness to promote recovery. Robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) utilizes robotic assistance to facilitate neuroplastic changes through repetitive training and feedback. We aimed to map the evidence of RAGT in non-ambulatory individuals with impaired consciousness or cognitive functioning, focusing on the rationales underpinning its use and the assessment methods employed. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA scoping review guidelines, we systematically searched for studies involving adults with severe acquired brain injury. Source selection, data extraction, and charting were performed in duplicate. Out of 10 444 records screened, seven were included, involving 162 participants. The studies included one randomized and two non-randomized clinical trials, two retrospective studies, and two case reports. RAGT aimed to improve physical recovery (n = 6), arousal stimulation (n = 4), and safety (n = 4). Twenty-six outcome measures were reported. Our review highlights a research gap in RAGT for individuals with severe brain injury and cognitive impairments. Specifically, the underlying rationales need investigation, and standardized outcome measures must be established. RAGT shows potential in improving functional recovery and consciousness, but future studies must address safety, and feasibility while navigating ethical challenges.