ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Smart exoskeleton-assisted rehabilitation after fracture surgery: closed-loop control, personalized load management, and integrated telemonitoring.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone fractures represent a significant global health challenge, particularly with the aging population, where traditional post-operative rehabilitation often falls short of meeting increasingly personalized recovery needs. Smart exoskeleton technology is evolving from passive orthoses toward powered, sensor-rich systems that integrate multimodal sensing-including sEMG, IMUs, and pressure sensors-to enable closed-loop control and dynamic assistance. This review summarizes the system architecture and control strategies of smart exoskeletons in post-fracture rehabilitation, focusing on personalized load management through "assist-as-needed" (AAN) algorithms and progressive loading protocols. Clinical decision-making for exoskeleton use must integrate the patient's biological condition-such as bone quality, age, and trauma complexity-with surgical fixation stability to aim to indirectly regulate mechanical loading toward the beneficial mechanobiological window of 2%-10% interfragmentary strain. While current evidence suggests these devices are safe and can improve range of motion and hospital stay duration, the clinical base remains heterogeneous, and consistent superiority over conventional therapy for complex fractures is yet to be established. Significant hurdles remain, including high device weight (12-27 kg), cost, anthropometric incompatibility, and the lack of standardized clinical frameworks. Future directions point toward lightweight, adaptive systems enhanced by Digital Twin technology for biomechanical simulation and predictive healing modeling. Furthermore, the integration of telemonitoring and multimodal care pathways will be essential to transition these systems from laboratory settings into routine clinical and home-based care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.