Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 8, 2026
Training Persons with Spinal Cord Injury to Ambulate Using a Powered Exoskeleton
Published on: June 16, 2016
Active, Actuated, and Assistive: a Scoping Review of Exoskeletons for the Hands and Wrists
1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.
Background:
Assistive technology is often incorporated into rehabilitation and support for those impacted by upper limb impairments. When powered, these devices provide additional force to the joints of users with muscle weakness. Actuated devices allow dynamic movement compared to splints, therefore improving the ability to complete activities of daily living. However, these devices are not often prescribed and are underrepresented in research and clinical settings.
Objective:
This review examined the existing literature on devices developed to support hand and wrist functionality in daily activities. Focusing on active, powered, and actuated devices, to gain a clearer understanding of the current limitations in their design and prescription.
Methodology:
The scoping review was conducted using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search was done on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and NHS the Knowledge Network from inception to May 2023. Articles were included if the device was portable; supported the hands and wrist actively using an actuator; and could be used for assistive living during or post-rehabilitation period.
Findings:
A total of 135 studies were included in the analysis of which 34 were clinical trials. The design and control methods of 121 devices were analyzed. Electrical stimulation and direct mechanical transmission were popular actuation methods. Electromyography (EMG) and joint movement detection were highly used control methods to translate user intentions to device actuation. A total of 226 validation methods were reported, of which 44% were clinically validated. Studies were often not conducted in operational environments with 69% at technology readiness levels ≤ 6, indicating that further development and testing is required.
Conclusion:
The existing literature on hand and wrist exoskeletons presents large variations in validation methods and technical requirements for user-specific characteristics. This suggests a need for well-defined testing protocols and refined reporting of device designs. This would improve the significance of clinical outcomes and new assistive technology.
