Skip to content

Lokomat® vs RoboGait® Under Different Guidance Force Settings in Motor-Incomplete SCI

Lokomat® Versus RoboGait®: Comparative Effects on Walking, Mobility, and Quality of Life Under Different Guidance Force Settings in Motor-Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07137780
Enrollment
19
Registered
2025-08-22
Start date
2022-11-23
Completion date
2024-11-23
Last updated
2025-08-22

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Spinal Cord Injuries

Keywords

Spinal Cord Injury, Robot-Assisted Gait Training, Functional Mobility, Guidance Force

Brief summary

This study compares two robotic-assisted gait training systems, Lokomat® and RoboGait®, used under different guidance force (GF) settings, in people with motor-incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). Nineteen adults, aged 18 years or older, with injury at T3 level or below and classified as AIS C or D within two years of injury, participated. They were assigned to one of three groups based on the average GF used during training: Lok90- (GF \< 90% with Lokomat®), Lok90+ (GF ≥ 90% with Lokomat®), and RG (GF ≥ 90% with RoboGait®). All participants completed 10 treadmill-based gait training sessions over 4 weeks, in addition to standard physiotherapy including stretching, strengthening, balance, and walking exercises. Walking ability, mobility, muscle strength, balance, independence in daily activities, and quality of life were assessed before and after the program. The study aimed to see whether the type of robot and GF setting affected recovery. Results showed modest improvements in some outcomes, with changes depending on the group and outcome measured. Findings suggest that adjusting GF settings may help tailor robotic gait training to individual needs.

Detailed description

This pilot study investigated the effects of two robotic-assisted gait training systems, Lokomat® V6 (Hocoma AG, Switzerland) and RoboGait® (BAMA Teknoloji, Türkiye), applied under different guidance force (GF) settings, on walking ability, functional mobility, and health-related quality of life in individuals with motor-incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with injury at T3 level or below, AIS C or D classification, and injury duration of 2 years or less. Exclusion criteria included severe spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale ≥ 3), joint disorders, implanted electronic devices, orthostatic hypotension, cardiac problems, or conditions preventing secure positioning in the robotic systems. Participants were assigned to three groups according to their average GF during training: Lok90- (GF \< 90% with Lokomat®), Lok90+ (GF ≥ 90% with Lokomat®), and RG (GF ≥ 90% with RoboGait®). All participants completed 10 treadmill-based gait training sessions over 4 weeks, with three sessions per week. Walking speed and angular parameters were individually adjusted to enhance comfort, reduce fatigue, and encourage active participation. Alongside robotic gait training, all participants received conventional physiotherapy that included stretching, strengthening, balance, walking, and mobility exercises. The primary outcome was walking status, measured using the Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury II (WISCI II). Secondary outcomes included, functional mobility (Timed Up and Go Test, TUG), lower extremity muscle strength (LEMS), balance (Berg Balance Scale, BBS), functional independence (Spinal Cord Independence Measure III, SCIM III), and health-related quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF-TR). The study aimed to determine whether the type of robotic system and GF settings influence functional outcomes in iSCI rehabilitation.

Interventions

DEVICELokomat® V6 (GF < 90%)

Robotic-assisted gait training using the Lokomat® V6 system (Hocoma AG, Switzerland) with an average guidance force of less than 90%. Training was delivered three times per week for 4 weeks, totaling 10 sessions. In addition to robotic gait training, participants received conventional physiotherapy, including stretching, strengthening, balance, walking, and mobility exercises.

DEVICELokomat® V6 (GF ≥ 90%)

Robotic-assisted gait training using the Lokomat® V6 system (Hocoma AG, Switzerland) with an average guidance force of 90% or higher. Training was delivered three times per week for 4 weeks, totaling 10 sessions. In addition to robotic gait training, participants received conventional physiotherapy, including stretching, strengthening, balance, walking, and mobility exercises.

Robotic-assisted gait training using the RoboGait® system (BAMA Teknoloji, Türkiye) with an average guidance force of 90% or higher. Training was delivered three times per week for 4 weeks, totaling 10 sessions. In addition to robotic gait training, participants received conventional physiotherapy, including stretching, strengthening, balance, walking, and mobility exercises.

Sponsors

Ankara City Hospital Bilkent
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Adults aged 18 years or older. * Diagnosis of spinal cord injury (SCI) at T3 level or below. * Injury duration of no more than 2 years. * Functional classification of C or D based on the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale. * ICD-10 diagnosis codes between S24.73-S24.77 or S34.70

Exclusion criteria

* Participation in another study. * Joint disorders affecting mobility. * Implanted electronic devices. * Orthostatic hypotension. * Severe spasticity in the lower extremities (Modified Ashworth Scale score ≥ 3). * Cardiac problems or conditions impairing stabilization in the robotic systems. * Presence of a colostomy.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Walking Index in Spinal Cord Injury II24 monthsWalking Index in Spinal Cord Injury II for walking independence level assessment

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Timed Up and Go Test24 monthsTimed Up and Go Test overground walking assessment
Berg Balance Scale24 monthsBerg Balance Scale for balance assessment
ASIA Lower Extremity Muscle Score24 monthsAssessment of lower extremity muscle strength using the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Lower Extremity Motor Score (LEMS)
Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM III)24 monthsSpinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM III) for activity of daily living assessment
World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale-Short Form (WHOQOL - BREF)24 monthsWorld Health Organization Quality of Life Scale-Short Form (WHOQOL - BREF) for quality of life assessment

Countries

Turkey (Türkiye)

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026