Study design: Multi-center pilot study. Objectives: To investigate the use of an upper limb robotic rehabilitation device (Armeo Spring, Hocoma AG, Switzerland) in a subacute cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) population. Setting: Two Canadian inpatient rehabilitation centers. Methods: Twelve subjects (motor level C4-C6, ASIA Impairment Scale A-D) completed the training, which consisted of 16.1 ± 4.6 sessions over 5.2±1.4 weeks. Two types of outcomes were recorded: (1) feasibility of incorporating the device into an inpatient rehabilitation program (compliance with training schedule, reduction in therapist time required and subject questionnaires) and (2) efficacy of the robotic rehabilitation for improving functional outcomes (Graded and Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP), action research arm test, grip dynamometry and range of motion). Results: By the end of the training period, the robot-assisted training was shown to require active therapist involvement for 25±11% (mean ± s.d.) of the total session time. In the group of all subjects and in a subgroup composed of motor-incomplete subjects, no statistically significant differences were found between intervention and control limbs for any of the outcome measures. In a subgroup of subjects with partial hand function at baseline, the GRASSP-Sensibility component showed a statistically significant increase (6.0 ± 1.6 (mean ± s.e.m.) point increase between baseline and discharge for the intervention limbs versus 1.9 ± 0.9 points for the control limbs). Conclusion:The pilot results suggest that individuals with some preserved hand function after SCI may be better candidates for rehabilitation training using the Armeo Spring device.

Upper limb robotic rehabilitation devices can collect quantitative data about the user's movements. Identifying relationships between robotic sensor data and manual clinical assessment scores would enable more precise tracking of the time course of recovery after injury and reduce the need for time-consuming manual assessments by skilled personnel. This study used measurements from robotic rehabilitation sessions to predict clinical scores in a traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) population. A retrospective analysis was conducted on data collected from subjects using the Armeo Spring (Hocoma, AG) in three rehabilitation centers. Fourteen predictive variables were explored, relating to range-of-motion, movement smoothness, and grip ability. Regression models using up to four predictors were developed to describe the following clinical scores: the GRASSP (consisting of four sub-scores), the ARAT, and the SCIM. The resulting adjusted R(2) value was highest for the GRASSP "Quantitative Prehension" component (0.78), and lowest for the GRASSP "Sensibility" component (0.54). In contrast to comparable studies in stroke survivors, movement smoothness was least beneficial for predicting clinical scores in SCI. Prediction of upper-limb clinical scores in SCI is feasible using measurements from a robotic rehabilitation device, without the need for dedicated assessment procedures.

To address a gap between spinal cord injury (SCI) research and practice by rigorously and systematically co-developing integrated knowledge translation (IKT) guiding principles for conducting and disseminating SCI research in partnership with research users. Design: The process was guided by the internationally accepted The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument for evaluating the development of clinical practice guidelines. Setting: North American SCI research system (ie, SCI researchers, research users, funders). Participants: The multidisciplinary expert panel (nZ17) and end users (nZ35) included individuals from a North American partnership of SCI researchers, research users, and funders who have expertise in research partnerships. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Clarity, usefulness, and appropriateness of the principles. Results: Data regarding 125 principles of partnered research were systematically collected from 4 sources (review of reviews, scoping review, interviews, Delphi consensus exercise). A multidisciplinary expert panel held a 2-day meeting to establish consensus, select guiding principles, and draft the guidance. The panel reached 100% consensus on the principles and guidance document. The final document includes a preamble,