Gait Exoskeletons in Practice: Examples from Rehabilitation Settings
The following case descriptions are based on real-world deployment feedback from rehabilitation facilities in China where our manufacturing partners' devices are in active clinical use. They illustrate how devices are used, what clinical teams report, and what operational considerations arise in practice.
Important Notice Regarding These Case Descriptions
All case descriptions on this page are based on clinical team feedback and operational observations from rehabilitation facilities in China. They are provided for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute:
- Controlled clinical studies or peer-reviewed research
- Guarantees of clinical outcomes in any specific patient population
- Claims that similar results will be achieved in European or other international settings
- Medical advice or clinical recommendations
Individual patient outcomes depend on diagnosis, severity, clinical protocol, therapist training, patient compliance, and many other factors specific to each clinical environment.
GaitExo's products are not CE marked as medical devices under EU MDR 2017/745. Local medical device classification and registration requirements vary by country. All such determinations must be made by the importer and their regulatory advisors.
Case Study 01 · Neuro-Rehabilitation Ward
Intensive Gait Retraining in a 60-Bed Neuro-Rehabilitation Ward
Background
A 60-bed neuro-rehabilitation ward integrated one gait training exoskeleton into their intensive therapy protocol for early-stage stroke and incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI) patients. The department had previously relied entirely on manual therapist-assisted gait training, which limited the number of repetitive gait cycles achievable per session due to therapist physical fatigue. The device was introduced as a complement to existing manual therapy -- not as a replacement -- to increase the volume and consistency of repetitive gait practice available to patients during the intensive rehabilitation phase.
How the Device Was Used
The gait training exoskeleton was used for supervised sessions of 40-50 minutes, conducted by a physiotherapist. Sessions were scheduled for patients in the early post-acute rehabilitation phase -- typically 2-6 weeks post-stroke or post-injury -- who had sufficient cognitive function and met the physical eligibility criteria for the device (height 155-185cm, weight 50-100kg). The clinical team ran an initial staff training period of approximately one week before the first patient sessions began. Training was conducted remotely via video conference with technical support from the supplier.
Clinical Team Feedback
"The device allowed us to deliver approximately 15-20 assisted gait cycles per session consistently, compared to 8-10 cycles with manual therapist support before fatigue became a limiting factor. Therapists reported noticeably reduced physical strain over the 8-week period, particularly during sessions with heavier patients."
Key Operational Observations
- Donning and setup time averaged 12-15 minutes for the first two weeks, reducing to 7-8 minutes by week four as staff became familiar with the device
- No adverse events or safety incidents were reported during the 8-week deployment period
- Therapists noted that patients appeared more confident in their gait pattern by week 6 compared to manual-only sessions, though this was subjective observation rather than measured outcome
- The device required recalibration once during the 8-week period -- resolved remotely with supplier technical support within 24 hours
This case description is based on clinical team feedback collected during deployment. It is not a controlled clinical study. Figures for gait cycles and therapist feedback are based on self-reported observations from the clinical team. Individual patient outcomes and operational experiences will vary.
Case Study 02 · Rehabilitation Center
Corridor Walking Support in a Transition-Phase Rehabilitation Program
Background
A rehabilitation center introduced hip assist exoskeletons to extend walking practice opportunities for patients in the transition phase of rehabilitation -- the period after intensive gait training when patients are working toward more functional, semi-independent walking. Previously, corridor walking sessions were limited by therapist availability and the physical demand of providing manual support during longer walks. Two units were deployed simultaneously, allowing two patients to train in parallel under the supervision of one therapist with reduced manual support requirements.
How the Device Was Used
The hip assist devices were used primarily for corridor walking sessions of 20-40 minutes. Target patients were those who had completed or were transitioning out of intensive gait trainer sessions and were working toward longer-distance walking. The lightweight soft exosuit design allowed patients to don the device themselves with minimal therapist assistance after the first two weeks. Sessions were designed around the patient walking repeated lengths of the ward corridor, with the device providing powered hip flexion assistance to reduce compensatory movement patterns and reduce energy expenditure.
Clinical Team Feedback
"Two patients training simultaneously with one supervising therapist was genuinely useful for our department. The device reduced the physical involvement required from the therapist during corridor walks, which meant we could run longer sessions without the therapist needing to rest. Patients also seemed more willing to attempt longer distances with the device -- possibly related to confidence."
Key Operational Observations
- Average donning time reduced from approximately 8 minutes in week one to under 3 minutes by week three
- Both units remained in continuous service over 6 months with no hardware failures requiring replacement parts
- The clinical team noted that the powered hip flexion assistance appeared to reduce compensatory lateral trunk movements in several patients -- this was an informal clinical observation, not a measured outcome
- Battery life was sufficient for 3-4 consecutive sessions per charge, with charging completed overnight
This case description is based on 6 months of operational feedback from the rehabilitation center's clinical team. Observations are self-reported and not from a controlled study. Individual patient outcomes and device performance will vary across different clinical settings.
Case Study 03 · Mixed Rehabilitation Ward
Foot Drop Management Across a Mixed Neurological Rehabilitation Ward
Background
A mixed neurological rehabilitation ward introduced a combination of powered ankle assist devices and passive AFO solutions to address foot drop across a range of patient presentations. The ward had previously used only off-the-shelf passive AFOs, which provided basic ankle support but did not assist the dorsiflexion timing during the gait cycle. The decision to trial powered ankle assist devices alongside continued passive AFO use was driven by clinical team interest in whether the active dorsiflexion assistance would improve gait quality during training sessions for patients with moderate foot drop.
How the Devices Were Used
Powered ankle assist devices were used primarily during supervised therapy sessions for patients with moderate foot drop who had sufficient residual motor function to benefit from the device's gait-phase adaptive control. Passive AFOs were used for daily walking support and for patients whose foot drop was more severe or whose motor recovery made active assist less appropriate. The combination of powered and passive options allowed the clinical team to match device type to patient profile and recovery stage, rather than applying a single solution across all foot drop presentations.
Clinical Team Feedback
"Having both powered and passive options from the same supplier simplified our ordering and documentation process considerably. The powered devices were used mainly in therapy sessions -- therapists felt they were seeing better heel strike patterns during assisted walking compared to passive-only sessions. The passive AFOs covered daily walking and the patients who weren't candidates for the powered device."
Key Operational Observations
- The gait-phase adaptive control on the powered devices required a 30-minute calibration session per patient at first use -- clinical team considered this acceptable for the therapy context
- Passive AFOs required no calibration and were immediately usable after fitting -- preferred by the team for daily ward walking
- Over 12 months, two of the seven devices required minor maintenance -- handled through supplier remote diagnosis and local repair
- The clinical team developed an informal patient selection protocol over the first 3 months that matched device type (powered vs passive) to patient presentation -- this was shared informally with GaitExo and has informed subsequent product guidance
This case description covers 12 months of operational experience from a single ward. Clinical observations regarding gait quality are informal team observations, not measured outcomes from a controlled study. The combination of powered and passive devices described here reflects one clinical team's approach and may not be appropriate for all settings.
Common Themes Across Deployment Settings
Across all three deployment settings, several consistent patterns emerged from clinical team feedback. These are observations -- not clinical conclusions -- but they reflect practical realities that distributors and hospitals should be aware of when evaluating these devices.
Staff Training Time Is Short but Important
Across all three cases, clinical teams reported that initial staff training took 1-2 weeks before sessions felt routine. Remote training via video call was sufficient in all cases. Teams that allocated dedicated training time before first patient sessions reported faster adoption than those who trained alongside live patient sessions.
Donning Time Improves Rapidly
Across all three device types, donning time reduced significantly between week one and week four of deployment. Initial donning times of 10-15 minutes reduced to under 5 minutes for most devices once staff were familiar. This pattern suggests that donning time figures from early deployment should not be taken as representative of ongoing operational reality.
Combination Use Reflects Real Clinical Practice
No single device covered all patient needs in any of the three settings. Gait trainers, hip assist devices, and ankle solutions were used for different patient profiles and different phases of the rehabilitation pathway. Clinical teams consistently reported that having access to multiple device types from one supplier simplified documentation and communication compared to managing multiple vendor relationships.
Interested in Running a Pilot at Your Facility?
Every GaitExo partnership starts with a pilot. Tell us about your rehabilitation ward -- bed count, patient mix, current therapy equipment, and budget range -- and we will propose a realistic starting configuration.
For Distributors
We can connect you with these deployment references and discuss how similar pilot structures work in your target market. Contact us to start that conversation.
For Hospitals
If you do not have a local distributor, contact us directly. We will identify whether we have a partner in your country or help facilitate an introduction.
B2B inquiries only. We respond within 24 business hours.