Robot-assisted and exoskeleton gait and arm training

1. Introduction

Version followed: robot-assisted and exoskeleton training as delivered by physiotherapy and occupational therapy teams, described from FDA classification actions (2014–2015), manufacturer intended-use statements, the Cochrane reviews on gait (2025 update) and arm training (2018), the RATULS trial (Lancet 2019) and the NICE stroke rehabilitation evidence review on robot-assisted arm training; status as of October 2026 per the sources listed.

Robot-assisted and exoskeleton training is not a psychotherapy. It is a group of rehabilitation technologies used by the treating rehabilitation team, chiefly physiotherapists (physical therapists) and occupational therapists, for people with weakness or paralysis after stroke, spinal cord injury, acquired brain injury and other neurological conditions. Three broad device families appear in the sources [source: Cochrane CD006185; NIHR Evidence 2018, 2019; FDA/MDDI 2014–2015]:

• Upper-limb robots (for example the end-effector 'robotic gym' MIT-Manus used in RATULS) that guide or assist repeated arm movements.
• Stationary, treadmill-based gait robots such as the Lokomat (Hocoma), which combines a driven leg orthosis with body-weight support on a treadmill; Hocoma's US page states its intended use as increasing muscle strength and joint range of motion with the aim of improving walking [source: Hocoma Lokomat intended use].
• Wearable powered exoskeletons for overground walking, such as ReWalk, Ekso (EksoNR) and Indego, used in clinics and, for some devices, at home with a trained companion [source: MDDI 2014; New Mobility 2024].

The core idea of change, as rehabilitation sources describe it, is that devices allow many repetitions of task-like movement or walking that a person could not yet perform alone, with the aim of improving strength, function or walking independence; the devices supplement rather than replace therapist-led rehabilitation [source: Cochrane CD006185 2025; NICE evidence review]. For people with complete paralysis, personal exoskeletons are assistive devices that enable standing and walking while worn, not a cure [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020].

The psychotherapist does not prescribe, operate or schedule these devices. The psychotherapist's role is to work alongside the rehabilitation team on expectations, hope and disappointment, adjustment to disability, motivation, fear of falling, informed decision-making and communication with the team [synthesis].

Who delivers it. Registered physiotherapists/physical therapists and occupational therapists, usually within a multidisciplinary neurorehabilitation team with medical oversight. In the UK these professions are regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC); in the US physical therapists are licensed by state boards, with APTA as the professional association, and occupational therapists are certified through NBCOT and represented by AOTA [uncertain: not verified]. Personal exoskeleton users in the US must train with a companion at a certified clinical site before taking a device home [source: New Mobility 2024].

Regulatory status (as sources state it; checked October 2026).

• ReWalk (US): cleared by the FDA through the de novo pathway, reported on 27 June 2014 as the first exoskeleton cleared; indicated for people with spinal cord injury at levels T7–L5 for personal use with a trained caregiver, and T4–T6 in rehabilitation institutions [source: MDDI 2014]. The exact FDA decision date is not given in that report [uncertain: not verified].
• Powered exoskeletons as a class (US): an FDA final order of 24 February 2015, effective 26 March 2015, placed powered exoskeletons in Class II with special controls; FDA named the risks as falls, unexpected movement, early battery failure, skin injuries and sores, burns, shocks and interference with other electrical devices [source: MDDI 2015]. The regulation number is commonly given as 21 CFR 890.3480 [uncertain: not verified].
• Ekso / EksoNR (US): cleared for rehabilitation use in stroke and spinal cord injury in 2016, and in June 2020 announced as the first exoskeleton cleared for rehabilitation use in acquired brain injury [source: Rehab Management 2020]. A further clearance for multiple sclerosis has been reported [uncertain: not verified].
• Lokomat (US): marketed in the US; a Class 2 FDA recall (Z-2418-2020, initiated 8 June 2020) concerned Lokomat Pro units in which a motor-controller failure could make the body-weight-support rope move uncontrollably [source: FDA recall database].
• Medicare (US): from 1 January 2024 CMS placed personal exoskeletons in the existing brace benefit category; eligibility described includes paraplegia, age 18 or over, adequate bone density, standing tolerance, good joint range of motion and medical and radiological assessment [source: New Mobility 2024].
• Europe/UK: these devices carry CE marking as medical devices [uncertain: not verified]. NICE's stroke rehabilitation guideline (recommendation 1.13.18) advises against offering robot-assisted arm training as part of upper-limb rehabilitation, while noting that services already owning a robot may use it in specific cases such as where strengthening is the main goal [source: NICE evidence review, robot-assisted arm training]. The guideline number NG236 (2023) is given here from the guideline's web listing [uncertain: not verified]. The Royal College of Physicians 2016 stroke guideline advised machine-assisted arm training only within a clinical trial [source: NIHR Evidence 2018].

Evidence status (descriptive, not an instruction).

• Gait after stroke: the 2025 Cochrane update (101 studies, 4,224 adults) found that adding electromechanical or robotic gait training to physiotherapy probably increases the number of people walking independently at the end of treatment (about one extra person per nine treated; moderate certainty), with possible particular benefit in the first three months; the benefit may not persist at follow-up [source: Cochrane CD006185.pub6].
• Arm after stroke: the 2018 Cochrane review (45 trials, 1,619 participants) found small improvements in activities of daily living and arm function and a moderate effect on arm strength; adverse events were rare and not device-related [source: NIHR Evidence 2018]. RATULS (770 adults, one to five years after stroke, moderate–severe arm limitation) found robot-assisted training did not significantly improve arm function compared with usual care, and enhanced therapist-led therapy was not inferior to it; robot training improved impairment but this did not translate into everyday function [source: NIHR Evidence 2019; Rodgers et al. 2019].
• Spinal cord injury exoskeletons: a 2016 meta-analysis supported by a manufacturer reported no serious adverse events, a pooled fall incidence of about 4% and a fracture incidence of about 3% (one hairline fracture in a person without bone-density screening), and listed osteoporosis as a relative contraindication [source: Miller et al. 2016].

2. Framework

The rehabilitation team sets the course (assessment, eligibility screening, device fitting, supervised training, progression, review, and for personal devices, home-use training with a companion). Session numbers and schedules are clinical decisions of the treating team and are not given here [source: New Mobility 2024; Miller et al. 2016]. The psychotherapist's work runs in parallel phases [synthesis]:

Format: individual sessions, in person or remote; family or companion sessions where a companion is required or involved [synthesis]. Contact with the team only with the client's consent [synthesis].

3. Guiding principles

• Stay in your lane on the device. Never advise on settings, frequency, eligibility or whether to continue; route questions to the treating therapist or physician [synthesis].
• Hope is a resource, not a target. Do not deflate hope; help hold it alongside realistic information [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020 on hope and enthusiasm; synthesis].
• Evidence is described, not prescribed. Report what sources say about benefits and limits in plain terms, attributed, with uncertainty [synthesis].
• Function and meaning over machinery. Keep the client's valued goals (being at eye level with family, independence, participation) at the centre [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020].
• Adjustment is not failure. Grief, anger and ambivalence about disability are expected and can coexist with engagement [synthesis].
• Safety signals go to the team. Falls, near-falls, skin marks, pain, unusual fatigue or spasms that the client reports are passed on, with consent, promptly [source: FDA risks per MDDI 2015; synthesis].
• Collaboration is explicit. Agree consent, channels and what will be shared at the start [synthesis].
• Autonomy in decisions. The client decides, with the medical team, whether to take part in device training or research; the therapist supports the decision process [synthesis].
• Access and inequality are real. Cost, travel, companion requirements and service availability shape what is possible; acknowledge rather than individualise these barriers [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020; New Mobility 2024].

4. Intervention inventory

Part A describes how the rehabilitation team delivers the treatment, at a descriptive level only. Part B gives the psychotherapist's own interventions. No device settings, training schedules or progression rules are given; these belong to the treating team.

A1. How the treatment is delivered (descriptive)

• Purpose: to let the psychotherapist understand what the client is going through, so conversations are accurate.
• Steps (as sources describe them):
  1. Medical and therapy assessment for eligibility; for exoskeletons the sources list factors such as ability to stand with an assistive device, bone density, joint range, absence of severe spasticity, contractures or fractures, and standing tolerance [source: Miller et al. 2016; New Mobility 2024].
  2. Fitting of the device to the body, with straps and cuffs at points of contact; skin and pressure are checked because FDA lists skin injuries and sores among the risks [source: MDDI 2015].
  3. Supervised training by trained clinicians; stationary systems (Lokomat) use treadmill and body-weight support; wearable exoskeletons are used overground with crutches or a walker for balance, and the user often needs both hands for support [source: Hocoma; MDDI 2014; Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020].
  4. Arm robots guide or assist reaching and similar movements, typically within a wider upper-limb programme [source: NIHR Evidence 2019].
  5. For personal exoskeletons in the US, a period of training with a companion at a certified site precedes home use [source: New Mobility 2024].
• Example language (illustrative): 'Can you walk me through what a session in the device is actually like for you, from getting strapped in to taking it off?'
• Watch for: misunderstandings the client holds about what the device does; details that point to a safety issue (skin, falls, pain) to pass on.

B1. Exploring hopes, expectations and meanings

• Purpose: to make explicit what the client hopes the device will give them, before and during training. Use at referral, at the start of training and at review points.
• Steps:
  1. Ask open questions about what walking or arm use means (identity, independence, relationships, work).
  2. Ask what the client has heard about the device and from whom (team, media, peers, company material).
  3. Distinguish hopes about the device course from hopes about the long-term future.
  4. Write down, in the client's words, one or two near-term hopes that the team could comment on.
  5. With consent, compare these with what the team has said the course is aiming for [synthesis].
• Example language (illustrative): 'If the training went as well as it possibly could, what would be different in your week? And what would you settle for and still feel it was worth it?'
• Watch for: hopes framed only as cure or full recovery; hopes that depend on home use when the course is clinic-only; media-driven expectations. Working: the client can name hopes at more than one level and tolerates discussing both [synthesis]. Users in a qualitative study valued seeing themselves walk and being at eye level with others, while some found the benefits smaller than expected [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020].

B2. Psychoeducation about the device and the evidence

• Purpose: to help the client hold accurate, attributed information in plain language; always point back to the team for clinical questions.
• Steps:
  1. Ask what the team has already explained; fill gaps only with sourced general information.
  2. Explain the difference between devices used for training in therapy and personal devices used at home [source: MDDI 2014; New Mobility 2024].
  3. Summarise the evidence in neutral terms when asked (for example, Cochrane's moderate-certainty finding for walking independence after stroke, the more modest arm findings, and RATULS) [source: Cochrane CD006185 2025; NIHR Evidence 2018, 2019].
  4. Encourage the client to bring specific questions to the physiotherapist or physician; help them write the questions down.
• Example language (illustrative): 'From what the research reviews say, these machines seem to help some people more than others, and the team is best placed to say what it might mean for you. Shall we write down your questions for them?'
• Watch for: the client taking general evidence as a personal prediction; the therapist drifting into advice. Working: questions get to the team and the client reports clearer understanding.

B3. Supporting informed consent and shared decision-making

• Purpose: to support decisions about starting device training, joining a trial, or applying for a personal device. Decisions remain with the client and the medical team.
• Steps:
  1. Identify the decision and who makes it.
  2. Help the client list what matters most (time, travel, effort, cost, family load, hope, fear).
  3. Help them identify information still needed from the team (eligibility, risks such as falls, skin and bone, what happens after the course or trial ends).
  4. Check understanding and capacity informally; raise capacity concerns with the team rather than assessing formally unless that is your role [synthesis].
  5. For research participation, make sure the client knows they can withdraw and that ending a trial may mean losing device access [synthesis].
• Example language (illustrative): 'Whatever you decide, I want it to be your decision, made with the information you need. What would you need to know from the team to feel settled either way?'
• Watch for: pressure from family, peers or a sense of obligation; decisions driven by fear of missing a last chance. Working: client describes risks and benefits in their own words and feels free to decline.

B4. Working with hope and disappointment

• Purpose: to help the client process the emotional swings of training: elation at first standing or walking, then plateaus, slower progress than hoped, or the end of access.
• Steps:
  1. Name both reactions as common and understandable.
  2. Invite the client to describe a specific moment of high hope and a specific moment of disappointment.
  3. Explore what the disappointment says about what matters to them.
  4. Separate disappointment about the device from conclusions about the self ('I failed') or the future ('nothing will ever work').
  5. Revisit valued goals that remain reachable with or without the device.
• Example language (illustrative): 'Standing up and looking your daughter in the eye clearly meant a lot. And it sounds like the drive home afterwards felt flat. Both of those make sense.'
• Watch for: self-blame, hopelessness, withdrawal from therapy, signs of depression. Working: the client can talk about the device without being swept away by either euphoria or despair [synthesis].

B5. Adjustment to disability and identity work

• Purpose: to support adjustment to a changed body and life, whether or not walking or arm function improves.
• Steps:
  1. Explore the client's story of the injury or stroke and how they see themselves now.
  2. Use acceptance- and values-informed work to identify what they care about beyond walking [synthesis].
  3. Address grief for lost function as an ongoing process, not a stage to complete.
  4. Discuss assistive technology (wheelchair, exoskeleton, arm devices) in terms of what it enables, without ranking them morally [synthesis].
  5. Where relevant, link with peer support organisations.
• Example language (illustrative): 'Some people find the exoskeleton means a lot as a therapy and very little in day-to-day life, and others the reverse. Where does it sit for you?'
• Watch for: a belief that a life without walking is not worth living; sole investment of identity in the device. Users describe the devices as useful in therapy but impractical day to day [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020]. Working: broader life goals reappear in conversation.

B6. Motivation and engagement (without prescribing training)

• Purpose: to support the client's own reasons for engaging with rehabilitation when effort, fatigue or setbacks wear motivation down.
• Steps:
  1. Use motivational-interviewing style questions to elicit the client's reasons for and against continuing [synthesis].
  2. Reflect ambivalence without pushing either way.
  3. Link effort to personally valued goals agreed with the team.
  4. Problem-solve practical barriers (travel, fatigue, low mood) and pass practical or clinical barriers to the team.
  5. Never advise on how often or how long to train; refer to the treating therapist.
• Example language (illustrative): 'On a scale where you're thinking of stopping at one end and wanting to keep going at the other, where are you today, and what puts you there rather than lower?'
• Watch for: fatigue triggering spasticity or spasms that users report [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020] being treated as a motivation problem; pass these to the team. Working: the client chooses with clarity, including choosing to stop.

B7. Fear of falling and bodily safety

• Purpose: to address fear of falling and loss of control, which users describe, especially outside controlled settings [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020].
• Steps:
  1. Ask about fear of falling directly and normalise it, noting FDA lists falls among device risks [source: MDDI 2015].
  2. Distinguish realistic caution from anxiety that blocks participation.
  3. Teach general anxiety-management skills for use around sessions (paced breathing, grounding) as adjuncts [synthesis].
  4. Encourage the client to discuss fears and safety measures with the physiotherapist; do not suggest any change to device use.
  5. Record and pass on, with consent, any reported falls or near-falls.
• Example language (illustrative): 'Being afraid of falling when you can't catch yourself is a sensible fear. Have you been able to tell the physio how it feels?'
• Watch for: avoidance driven by fear after a fall; trauma-like reactions after a fall. Working: the client reports fear proportionate to risk and has raised safety questions with the team.

B8. Monitoring and passing on side effects and warning signs

• Purpose: to make sure physical problems the client mentions in therapy reach the treating team.
• Steps:
  1. Know the risks named by sources: falls, unexpected device movement, battery failure, skin injuries and pressure sores, burns, shocks, electrical interference [source: MDDI 2015]; bone fracture, particularly with low bone density [source: Miller et al. 2016]; swelling, fatigue, spasms and skin irritation reported by users [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020].
  2. Ask briefly at each session whether anything physical has changed since training began.
  3. If the client mentions a mark, sore, new pain, swelling, a fall or device malfunction, encourage them to tell the team the same day and, with consent, contact the team yourself.
  4. For people with reduced sensation, remember they may not feel skin damage; prompt them to ask the team about skin checks [synthesis].
  5. Document what was reported and to whom.
• Example language (illustrative): 'You mentioned a red patch on your leg where the strap sits. With reduced feeling there, that's something the physio will want to know about today. Can we ring them together?'
• Watch for: minimisation to avoid being taken off the programme; signs of autonomic dysreflexia in people with high spinal cord injury (sudden headache, flushing) need urgent medical attention [uncertain: not verified]. Working: problems reach the team quickly.

B9. Body image, social visibility and relationships

• Purpose: to address how being seen in a device, or standing at eye level again, affects self-image and relationships.
• Steps:
  1. Ask how the client feels about being seen using the device by family, peers and the public.
  2. Explore both positive experiences (eye-level contact, feeling more whole) and negative ones (stigma, vulnerability) [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020].
  3. Address others' reactions, including well-meant focus on standing that misses the client's priorities [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020].
  4. Offer joint sessions with partners or family where helpful.
• Example language (illustrative): 'When people cheer you for standing, how does that land, given what you most care about?'
• Watch for: shame, social withdrawal, or relational strain. Working: the client can express what they want others to understand.

B10. Companion and family involvement

• Purpose: to support the companions that home use requires and the family affected by training demands.
• Steps:
  1. Map who is involved and what is expected of them (for example the trained companion required for personal ReWalk use) [source: MDDI 2014; New Mobility 2024].
  2. Explore caregiver strain, role shifts and conflict over the device.
  3. Support honest conversations about willingness and capacity to act as companion.
  4. Signpost carers to their own support [synthesis].
• Example language (illustrative): 'Being the person who walks beside the device is a real commitment. How is that sitting with you both?'
• Watch for: a companion's burnout determining whether the client can use a device; unspoken resentment. Working: both can discuss limits openly.

B11. Screening mood and cognition and suggesting medical review

• Purpose: to recognise depression, anxiety, post-traumatic symptoms or cognitive difficulties that may affect wellbeing and participation, and to refer appropriately [synthesis].
• Steps:
  1. Use routine screening measures you are trained in; describe licensed instruments only as permitted.
  2. If mood is low or cognition seems changed, suggest a review with the treating physician or team and communicate findings with consent.
  3. Adapt therapy for aphasia, fatigue or attention problems after stroke or brain injury (shorter segments, written summaries) [synthesis].
• Example language (illustrative): 'Some of what you describe sounds like it could be depression, which is common after a stroke and treatable. Would it be OK if I let your doctor know so they can look at it with you?'
• Watch for: hopelessness, suicidal thoughts, marked change in cognition. Working: referral happens and is followed up.

B12. Collaboration with the rehabilitation team

• Purpose: to coordinate psychological work with the rehabilitation programme.
• Steps:
  1. Agree consent for communication at the start: who, what and how.
  2. Learn the team's goals for the course and share, with consent, the client's priorities and psychological barriers.
  3. Use shared language about goals; avoid contradicting team advice.
  4. Feed back safety issues (B8) and mood concerns (B11) promptly.
  5. Plan jointly for transitions (discharge, end of trial).
• Example language (illustrative, to the team): 'With her consent: she is highly motivated but very afraid of falling since last week. It might help if someone could talk through the safety measures with her before the next session.'
• Watch for: split messages between team and therapist; confidentiality breaches. Working: team and therapist work from a shared picture.

B13. Crisis and safety planning

• Purpose: to address suicidal thinking or crisis, which may arise around disability adjustment or major disappointment [synthesis].
• Steps:
  1. Assess risk using current standard practice; ask directly.
  2. Develop a collaborative safety plan: warning signs, coping steps, people and services to contact, lethal-means counselling (safe storage and removal).
  3. Involve the medical team and crisis services as required.
  4. Anticipate high-risk moments: a failed eligibility assessment, end of a trial or course, a fall or injury.
• Example language (illustrative): 'When people hit a disappointment this big, sometimes thoughts of not wanting to go on come up. Has anything like that crossed your mind?'
• Watch for: sudden calm after a major setback; withdrawal. Working: the client has and uses a plan.

B14. Transitions and support after the course ends

• Purpose: to support the client when device access ends (discharge, end of trial, no personal device because of eligibility or cost) or when a personal device is obtained.
• Steps:
  1. Raise the ending well before it happens.
  2. Explore feelings about loss of access, including anger about cost or availability [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020 on cost and access barriers].
  3. Consolidate gains in mood, confidence and participation that do not depend on the device.
  4. For those going home with a device, explore expectations of daily use, given barriers users describe (donning time, cars, stairs, hands needed for crutches) [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020].
  5. Agree how to return for support.
• Example language (illustrative): 'The last session in the clinic is in three weeks. What will you miss, and what do you want to carry on from this?'
• Watch for: abrupt drop in mood after discharge; a personal device left unused and a sense of failure about that. Working: the client describes a life plan that includes, but does not depend on, the device.

5. Handling problems

The sources describe device risks and user experience but give no guidance for psychotherapists; all responses below are [synthesis] unless a source is cited.

• Client asks you whether to continue, stop or change training. Reflect the question back, explore what is driving it, and route the decision to the physiotherapist or physician. Example (illustrative): 'That's a really important question, and it needs the team's view as well as yours. What would you want to ask them?'
• Unrealistic expectations of cure. Do not argue; ask what the hope protects and what life would look like if it were partly met. Bring sourced general information gently (B2) and encourage a team conversation about expected outcomes.
• Plateau or stalled progress. Normalise; separate progress in the device from progress in life; check for low mood, pain, fatigue or spasm issues and pass physical ones to the team. Users describe fatigue triggering spasticity [source: Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020].
• Overwhelm or exhaustion. Shorten and slow sessions; focus on one concern; check sleep and mood; let the team know the client is struggling with load.
• Non-attendance at rehabilitation sessions. Explore ambivalence (B6) without judgement; look for fear (B7), shame (B9), practical barriers (travel, companion availability, cost) and depression (B11). Encourage the client to talk to the team; do not take sides.
• Anger at the team or the device. Validate the feeling; separate frustration with limits of the technology from relational problems with staff; support the client to raise concerns directly; avoid colluding.
• Ruptures in the therapy relationship. Name and repair them; a common rupture is the client feeling the therapist is 'dampening hope'. Acknowledge, and clarify that your role is to support hope and help with whatever happens.
• After a fall, injury or device malfunction. Make sure the team knows; explore fear and any trauma-like reactions; support the client to report device problems through the team (the 2020 Lokomat recall shows that device faults are tracked by regulators) [source: FDA recall database].
• Ineligibility, refusal of funding or end of trial access. Treat as a loss; watch suicide risk (B13); explore other routes to valued goals; signpost to advocacy and peer organisations. In the US, Medicare coverage of personal exoskeletons depends on criteria including age 18+, bone density and joint range [source: New Mobility 2024].
• Family pressure to keep going or to stop. Hold a joint session; help each voice be heard; return the decision to the client and team.
• Media or marketing claims. Help the client weigh claims by asking where they come from; note that a key SCI meta-analysis was manufacturer-supported [source: Miller et al. 2016] and that NICE advises against routine robot-assisted arm training after stroke [source: NICE evidence review].
• Cognitive or communication impairment. Adapt materials; involve speech and language therapy; check understanding of consent with the team (B3, B11).

Sources

• An Exoskeleton First: FDA Clears ReWalk (MDDI, 27 June 2014)
• Powered Exoskeletons Deemed Class II Devices (MDDI, 24 February 2015)
• Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke (Cochrane, CD006185.pub6, 2025)
• Robot-assisted arm training after stroke helps people regain some strength and independence (NIHR Evidence, 2018)
• Robot-assisted training offers little useful improvement in severe arm weakness and function after stroke (NIHR Evidence, 2019)
• NICE evidence review: robot-assisted arm training (stroke rehabilitation guideline)
• Kinnett-Hopkins et al. 2020, Users with spinal cord injury experience of robotic locomotor exoskeletons (J NeuroEng Rehabil 17:124)
• Miller, Zimmermann, Herbert 2016, Clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in patients with spinal cord injury (Med Devices Evid Res 9:455–466)
• FDA clears Ekso Bionics EksoNR for rehab use with ABI (Rehab Management, 2020)
• Lokomat intended use (Hocoma, US)
• FDA medical device recall Z-2418-2020, Lokomat Pro
• Medicare to Cover Personal Exoskeletons (New Mobility, 27 February 2024)
• Rodgers H, Bosomworth H, Krebs HI, et al. 2019. Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31055-4 (as cited by NIHR Evidence).
• Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T, Kugler J, Elsner B. 2018. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD006876 (as cited by NIHR Evidence).
• Mehrholz J, Kugler J, Pohl M, Elsner B. 2025. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD006185.pub6.