Jennifer L Maher1, Carsten Bach Baunsgaard2, Jan van Gerven3, Anne E Palermo4, Fin Biering-Sorensen2, Armando Mendez5, Robert W Irwin6, Mark S Nash7. 1. Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. Electronic address: jlmaher@med.miami.edu. 2. Clinic for Spinal Cord Injuries, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Radboud University, Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 4. Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 5. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Diabetes Research Institute, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 6. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 7. Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida; Department of Neurological Surgery and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To (1) compare energy expenditure during seated rest, standing, and prolonged bionic ambulation or bipedal ambulation in participants with spinal cord injury (SCI) and noninjured controls, respectively, and (2) test effects on postbionic ambulation glycemia in SCI. DESIGN: Two independent group comparison of SCI and controls. SETTING: Academic Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: Ten participants with chronic SCI (C7-T1, American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale A-C) and 10 controls (N=20). INTERVENTIONS: A commercial bionic exoskeleton. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Absolute and relative (to peak) oxygen consumption, perceived exertion, carbohydrate/fat oxidation, energy expenditure, and postbionic ambulation plasma glucose/insulin. RESULTS: Average work intensity accompanying 45 minutes of outdoor bionic ambulation was <40% peak oxygen consumption, with negligible drift after reaching steady state. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) did not differ between groups and reflected low exertion. Absolute energy costs for bionic ambulation and nonbionic ambulation were not different between groups despite a 565% higher ambulation velocity in controls and 3.3× higher kilocalorie per meter in SCI. Fuel partitioning was similar between groups and the same within groups for carbohydrate and fat oxidation. Nonsignificant (9%) lowering of the area under a glucose tolerance curve following bionic ambulation required 20% less insulin than at rest. CONCLUSION: Work intensity during prolonged bionic ambulation for this bionic exoskeleton is below a threshold for cardiorespiratory conditioning but above seated rest and passive standing. Bionic ambulation metabolism is consistent with low RPE and unchanged fuel partitioning from seated rest. Bionic ambulation did not promote beneficial effects on glycemia in well-conditioned, euglycemic participants. These findings may differ in less fit individuals with SCI or those with impaired glucose tolerance. Observed trends favoring this benefit suggest they are worthy of testing. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVES: To (1) compare energy expenditure during seated rest, standing, and prolonged bionic ambulation or bipedal ambulation in participants with spinal cord injury (SCI) and noninjured controls, respectively, and (2) test effects on postbionic ambulation glycemia in SCI. DESIGN: Two independent group comparison of SCI and controls. SETTING: Academic Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: Ten participants with chronic SCI (C7-T1, American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale A-C) and 10 controls (N=20). INTERVENTIONS: A commercial bionic exoskeleton. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Absolute and relative (to peak) oxygen consumption, perceived exertion, carbohydrate/fat oxidation, energy expenditure, and postbionic ambulation plasma glucose/insulin. RESULTS: Average work intensity accompanying 45 minutes of outdoor bionic ambulation was <40% peak oxygen consumption, with negligible drift after reaching steady state. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) did not differ between groups and reflected low exertion. Absolute energy costs for bionic ambulation and nonbionic ambulation were not different between groups despite a 565% higher ambulation velocity in controls and 3.3× higher kilocalorie per meter in SCI. Fuel partitioning was similar between groups and the same within groups for carbohydrate and fat oxidation. Nonsignificant (9%) lowering of the area under a glucose tolerance curve following bionic ambulation required 20% less insulin than at rest. CONCLUSION: Work intensity during prolonged bionic ambulation for this bionic exoskeleton is below a threshold for cardiorespiratory conditioning but above seated rest and passive standing. Bionic ambulation metabolism is consistent with low RPE and unchanged fuel partitioning from seated rest. Bionic ambulation did not promote beneficial effects on glycemia in well-conditioned, euglycemic participants. These findings may differ in less fit individuals with SCI or those with impaired glucose tolerance. Observed trends favoring this benefit suggest they are worthy of testing. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Damien Duddy; Rónán Doherty; James Connolly; Johnny Loughrey; Joan Condell; David Hassan; Maria Faulkner Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Christopher C H Yip; Chor-Yin Lam; Kenneth M C Cheung; Yat Wa Wong; Paul A Koljonen Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 4.003