The objective of this study was to assess the effect of a passive trunk exoskeleton on functional performance for various work related tasks in healthy individuals. 18 healthy men performed 12 tasks. Functional performance in each task was assessed based on objective outcome measures and subjectively in terms of perceived task difficulty, local and general discomfort. Wearing the exoskeleton tended to increase objective performance in static forward bending, but decreased performance in tasks, such as walking, carrying and ladder climbing. A significant decrease was found in perceived task difficulty and local discomfort in the back in static forward bending, but a significant increase of perceived difficulty in several other tasks, like walking, squatting and wide standing. Especially tasks that involved hip flexion were perceived more difficult with the exoskeleton. Design improvements should include provisions to allow full range of motion of hips and trunk to increase versatility and user acceptance.

In the EU, lower back pain affects more than 40% of the working population. Mechanical loading of the lower back has been shown to be an important risk factor. Peak mechanical load can be reduced by ergonomic interventions, the use of cranes and, more recently, by the use of exoskeletons. Despite recent advances in the development of exoskeletons for industrial applications, they are not widely adopted by industry yet. Some of the challenges, which have to be overcome are a reduced range of motion, misalignment between the human anatomy and kinematics of the exoskeleton as well as discomfort. A body of research exists on how an exoskeleton can be designed to compensate for misalignment and thereby improve comfort. However, how to design an exoskeleton that achieves a similar range of motion as a human lumbar spine of up to 60 • in the sagittal plane, has not been extensively investigated. We addressed this need by developing and testing a novel passive back support exoskeleton, including a mechanism comprised of flexible beams, which run in parallel to the spine, providing a large range of motion and lowering the peak torque requirements around the lumbo-sacral (L5/S1) joint. Furthermore, we ran a pilot study to test the biomechanical (N = 2) and functional (N = 3) impact on subjects while wearing the exoskeleton. The biomechanical testing was once performed with flexible beams as a back interface and once with a rigid structure. An increase of more than 25% range of motion of the trunk in the sagittal plane was observed by using the flexible beams. The pilot functional tests, which are compared to results from a previous study with the Laevo device, suggest, that the novel exoskeleton is perceived as less hindering in almost all tested tasks.

The objective of this study was to assess how wearing a passive trunk exoskeleton affects metabolic costs, movement strategy and muscle activation during repetitive lifting and walking. We measured energy expenditure, kinematics and muscle activity in 11 healthy men during 5 min of repetitive lifting and 5 min of walking with and without exoskeleton. Wearing the exoskeleton during lifting, metabolic costs decreased as much as 17%. In conjunction, participants tended to move through a smaller range of motion, reducing mechanical work generation. Walking with the exoskeleton, metabolic costs increased up to 17%. Participants walked somewhat slower with shortened steps while abdominal muscle activity slightly increased when wearing the exoskeleton. Wearing an exoskeleton during lifting decreased metabolic costs and hence may reduce the development of fatigue and low back pain risk. During walking metabolic costs increased, stressing the need for a device that allows disengagement of support depending on activities performed.Practitioner summary: Physiological strain is an important risk factor for low back pain. We observed that an exoskeleton reduced metabolic costs during lifting, but had an opposite effect while walking. Therefore, exoskeletons may be of benefit for lifting by decreasing physiological strain but should allow disengagement of support when switching between tasks.Abbreviations: COM: centre of mass; EMG: electromyography; LBP: low back pain; MVC: maximum voluntary isometric contraction; NIOSH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; PLAD: personal lift augmentation device; PWS: preferred walking speed without exoskeleton; PWSX: preferred walking speed with exoskeleton; ROM: range of motion; RER: respiratory exchange ratio; V _O2max: maximum rate of oxygen consumption ARTICLE HISTORY