IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2020i1p161-d469440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Subjective Responses of Low Back Pain Patients and Asymptomatic Controls to Use of Spinal Exoskeleton during Simple Load Lifting Tasks: A Pilot Study

Author

Listed:
  • Žiga Kozinc

    (Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Primorska, Polje 42, SI-6310 Izola, Slovenia
    Andrej Marušič Institute, University of Primorska, Muzejski trg 2, SI-6000 Koper, Slovenia)

  • Jan Babič

    (Laboratory for Neuromechanics and Biorobotics, Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamova cesta 39, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Nejc Šarabon

    (Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Primorska, Polje 42, SI-6310 Izola, Slovenia
    Andrej Marušič Institute, University of Primorska, Muzejski trg 2, SI-6000 Koper, Slovenia
    InnoRenew CoE, Human Health Department, Livade 6, SI-6310 Izola, Slovenia
    S2P, Science to Practice, Ltd., Laboratory for Motor Control and Motor Behavior, Tehnološki Park 19, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Abstract

Spinal exoskeletons have been suggested as an approach for the prevention and rehabilitation of occupational low back pain (LBP). While the state-of-the-art exoskeletons were shown to substantially unload the back, user acceptance is still limited. Perceived discomfort and restriction of freedom of movement are commonly reported. In this pilot study, we explored the differences in subjective responses and user impressions to using passive spinal exoskeleton during a set of simple lifting tasks between LBP patients ( n = 12) and asymptomatic individuals ( n = 10). Visual analog scales (0–10) were used for all assessments. Overall, the results showed mostly similar responses or slightly more positive responses to the exoskeleton from LBP patients. Most notably, the LBP patients reported a statistically significant ( p = 0.048) higher willingness to use the device daily (5.36 ± 4.05) compared to the control group (2.00 ± 1.85) and also gave the device a higher overall grade (6.58 ± 1.98 vs. 4.30 ± 2.26; p = 0.021). This study has demonstrated that individuals with current LBP responded more favorably to the use of the spinal exoskeleton for simple lifting tasks. This implies that current exoskeletons could be appropriate for LBP rehabilitation, but not preventions, as pain-free individuals are less willing to use such devices. Future studies should explore whether different exoskeleton designs could be more appropriate for people with no LBP issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Žiga Kozinc & Jan Babič & Nejc Šarabon, 2020. "Comparison of Subjective Responses of Low Back Pain Patients and Asymptomatic Controls to Use of Spinal Exoskeleton during Simple Load Lifting Tasks: A Pilot Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2020:i:1:p:161-:d:469440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/1/161/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/1/161/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francesco Gilardi & Federica De Falco & Daniela Casasanta & Martina Andellini & Simone Gazzellini & Maurizio Petrarca & Andreina Morocutti & Donatella Lettori & Matteo Ritrovato & Enrico Castelli & Ma, 2020. "Robotic Technology in Pediatric Neurorehabilitation. A Pilot Study of Human Factors in an Italian Pediatric Hospital," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-15, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2020:i:1:p:161-:d:469440. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.