Article

Effect of a Foot-Drop Stimulator and Ankle-Foot Orthosis on Walking Performance After Stroke: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

1University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Neurorehabilitation and neural repair (Impact Factor: 4.62). 04/2013; 27(7). DOI: 10.1177/1545968313481278
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: . Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of functional electrical stimulation in the management of foot drop after stroke. OBJECTIVE: . To compare changes in walking performance with the WalkAide (WA) foot-drop stimulator and a conventional ankle-foot orthosis (AFO). METHODS: . Individuals with stroke within the previous 12 months and residual foot drop were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized controlled, crossover trial. Subjects were assigned to 1 of 3 parallel arms for 12 weeks (6 weeks/device): arm 1 (WA-AFO), n = 38; arm 2 (AFO-WA), n = 31; arm 3 (AFO-AFO), n = 24. Primary outcomes were walking speed and Physiological Cost Index for the Figure-of-8 walking test. Secondary measures included 10-m walking speed and perceived safety during this test, general mobility, and device preference for arms 1 and 2 for continued use. Walking tests were performed with (On) and without a device (Off) at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: . Both WA and AFO had significant orthotic (On-Off difference), therapeutic (change over time when Off), and combined (change over time On vs baseline Off) effects on walking speed. An AFO also had a significant orthotic effect on Physiological Cost Index. The WA had a higher, but not significantly different therapeutic effect on speed than an AFO, whereas an AFO had a greater orthotic effect than the WA (significant at 12 weeks). Combined effects on speed after 6 weeks did not differ between devices. Users felt as safe with the WA as with an AFO, but significantly more users preferred the WA. CONCLUSIONS: . Both devices produce equivalent functional gains.

Full-text

Available from: Karen J Nolan, May 29, 2015
3 Followers
 · 
350 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Functional electrical stimulation (FES) to lower extremity (LE) muscles is used by individuals post-stroke as an alternative to mechanical orthotic devices during gait or as a training modality during rehabilitation. Technological developments which improve the feasibility, accessibility and effectiveness of FES systems as orthotic and training devices, highlight the potential of FES for rehabilitating LE function in individuals post-stroke. This study presents a systematic review of the carryover effects of LE FES to motor performance when stimulation is not applied (therapeutic effects) in subjects post-stroke. A description of advances in FES technologies, with an emphasis on systems designed to promote LE function is included, and mechanisms that may be associated with the observed therapeutic effects are discussed. Eligible studies were reviewed for methodological quality, population, intervention and outcome characteristics. Therapeutic effects of FES were consistently demonstrated at the body function and activity levels when it was used as a training modality. Compared to matched treatments that did not incorporate FES, no definite conclusions can be drawn regarding the superiority of FES. When FES was used as an alternative to an orthotic device, it had no superior therapeutic effects at the activity level, yet patients still seemed to prefer it.
    Annals of Biomedical Engineering 10/2014; 43(2). DOI:10.1007/s10439-014-1148-8 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review discusses the advancements that are needed to enhance the effects of electrical stimulation for restoring or assisting movement in humans with an injury/disease of the central nervous system. A complex model of the effects of electrical stimulation of peripheral systems is presented. The model indicates that both the motor and sensory systems are activated by electrical stimulation. We propose that a hierarchical hybrid controller may be suitable for functional electrical stimulation (FES) because this type of controller acts as a structural mimetic of its biological counterpart. Specific attention is given to the neural systems at the periphery with respect to the required electrodes and stimulators. Furthermore, we note that FES with surface electrodes is preferred for the therapy, although there is a definite advantage associated with implantable technology for life-long use. The last section of the review discusses the potential need to combine FES and robotic systems to provide assistance in some cases.
    Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 10/2014; 24(6). DOI:10.1016/j.jelekin.2014.09.008 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Center of pressure measured during gait can provide information about underlying control mechanisms and the efficacy of a foot drop stimulator. This investigation evaluated changes in center of pressure displacement in individuals with stroke with and without a foot drop stimulator. Individuals with stroke-related foot drop (n=11) using a foot drop stimulator and healthy controls (n=11). Walking speed and bilateral center of pressure variables: 1) net displacement; 2) position and maximum displacement; and 3) mean velocity during walking. On the affected limb with the foot drop stimulator as compared to the affected limb without the foot drop stimulator: 1) increased anterior/posterior maximum center of pressure excursion 8% during stance; 2) center of pressure at initial contact was 6% more posterior; 3) medial/lateral mean, maximum and minimum center of pressure position during stance all significantly decreased; 4) anterior/posterior net displacement increased during stance and single support; and 5) anterior/posterior velocity of the center of pressure increased during stance. Individuals with stroke using a foot drop stimulator contacted the ground more posterior at initial contact and utilized more of the anterior/posterior plantar surface of the foot on the affected limb during stance. With the foot drop stimulator there was a shift in center of pressure toward the medial side possibly indicating an improvement in equinovarus gait where there is a tendency to load the lateral foot throughout stance. For individuals with stroke a foot drop stimulator can improve displacement of the center of pressure which indicates improved forward progression and stability during walking. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) 03/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.03.016 · 1.88 Impact Factor