Introduction
Search strategy
Definition of exoskeletons
Advantages | Disadvantages | |
---|---|---|
Active exoskeletons | • Significant physical support, augmenting the user’s strength and endurance. • Incorporate sensors, actuators, and control algorithms, allowing for sophisticated and responsive assistance. • Adjust the level of assistance based on the task or the user’s movement, offering personalized support. | • High Energy Consumption • High cost • Eight and bulkiness • Maintenance complexity • Potential for Over-Reliance |
Passive exoskeletons | • Suitable for all-day use • Simple to clean • User-friendly • Affordable | • Offer less support compared to powered exoskeletons. |
Hard exoskeletons | • Offers ample support during weightlifting activities. • Automatically adapts to provide the necessary level of assistance. | • Driven by high energy demands (limited endurance, significant energy usage). • Larger, more cumbersome design (reduced adaptability to various environments). • Rigid framework (hinders daily activities, restricts movement) • Maintenance can be challenging. • High cost |
Soft exoskeletons | • Conforms well to the body’s shape. • Easily customizable for a comfortable fit. • Compact and lightweight design. • Compatible for wear under personal protective equipment (PPE). • Cost-effective | • Challenging to attach motors and sensors. • Absence of a rigid structure leads to reduced strength support. • Places strain on the body |
Effectiveness of exoskeletons
Reduced physical strain
Improved posture and body mechanics
Reduced physical fatigue
Enhanced patient care
Usability and acceptance
Device comfort and fit
Ease of use and integration
User experience and training
Compatibility with work environment
User feedback and iterative design
Impact on work life
Reduced work-related injuries
Improved physical well-being
Enhanced job satisfaction
Psychological and psychosocial benefits
Impact on patient care
Challenges and future directions
Year | Exoskeletons | Subjects | Results | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
2023 | Low Back Exoskeleton | 14 nurses | Satisfaction score of the nurses relative to the use of the exoskeleton was 6/10. The median impact of the exoskeleton on nurses’ fatigue was 7/10. | [5] |
2023 | Qualitative research | 8 nurses | Exoskeleton was felt to be easy to use after initial adjustments | [61] |
2023 | Qualitative research | 7 nurses | Five themes emerged from the interviews (workflow, user needs, hindrances, motivation for intervention, and acceptance) | [63] |
2022 | Passive back-assist exoskeleton | 23 nurses | Perceived usefulness and enjoyment of use increases and anxiety toward the use decreases nurses’ exoskeleton acceptance. | [26] |
2021 | Hybrid assistive limb | 19 nurses | Mean lumbar fatigue VAS score for all participants without the HAL for Care Support was 62 mm, while that with it was 43 mm. | [62] |
2021 | Passive back-support exoskeletons | 20 nurses | The muscle activities of the erector spinae were significantly lower (up to 11.2%) compared to no exoskeleton use | [64] |
2020 | Passive shoulder-assist exoskeleton | 4 surgical nurses | Usability scale was 81.3 out of 100 | [53] |