Systematic review reveals motor control improvements from upper-limb exoskeletons in stroke rehabilitation, highlighting a transition toward soft, home-based devices.
Background: Recent advancements in enabling technologies, including artificial intelligence and telemedicine, alongside robust clinical study outcomes, have led to significant progress in upper limb and hand exoskeletons utilised for post-stroke rehabilitation. Objectives: This review aims to synthesize the recent scientific literature (2010–2025) on post-stroke upper-limb and hand exoskeletons, with particular attention to the sensing architectures—sensing modalities, signal processing, sensor fusion, and sensor-driven control—that integrate technical and biomedical domains to examine device architecture, clinical context, and outcome selection. Methods: A search of PubMed and Scopus was conducted on 10 November 2025, cross-checked against IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, Embase, and ACM Digital Library. We included studies evaluating wearable exoskeletons or robotic orthoses for the upper limb/hand in post-stroke rehabilitation. Two independent reviewers screened records and extracted data, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Data were synthesised using a predefined label-based taxonomy. The review protocol was not registered. Results: From 1889 identified records, 219 studies met the inclusion criteria. The synthesis reveals a transition from rigid, laboratory-centered systems to lighter, soft, and home-oriented solutions. Available evidence suggests potential impairment-level benefits, particularly for proximal motor control, but certainty remains limited due to heterogeneity, small samples, blinding limitations, inconsistent dosing, and limited long-term follow-up; gains in hand/finger dexterity appear even more variable. Discussion: While exoskeleton-assisted therapy appears associated with impairment-level gains, transfer to activities of daily living (ADLs) and real-world function remains inconsistently documented and insufficiently powered to support firm conclusions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borboni et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: