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: 4.28). 04/2013; 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.

3 Bookmarks
 · 
273 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: . Evidence supports peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation (FES) as an effective alternative to ankle-foot orthoses (AFO) for treatment of foot drop poststroke, but few randomized controlled comparisons exist. . To compare changes in gait and quality of life (QoL) between FES and an AFO in individuals with foot drop poststroke. . In a multicenter randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01087957) with unblinded outcome assessments, 495 Medicare-eligible individuals at least 6 months poststroke wore FES or an AFO for 6 months. Primary endpoints: 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), a composite of the Mobility, Activities of Daily Living/Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, and Social Participation subscores on the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), and device-related serious adverse event rate. Secondary endpoints: 6-Minute Walk Test, GaitRite Functional Ambulation Profile (FAP), Modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile (mEFAP), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go, individual SIS domains, and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life measures. Multiply imputed intention-to-treat analyses were used with primary endpoints tested for noninferiority and secondary endpoints tested for superiority. . A total of 399 subjects completed the study. FES proved noninferior to the AFO for all primary endpoints. Both the FES and AFO groups improved significantly on the 10MWT. Within the FES group, significant improvements were found for SIS composite score, total mFEAP score, individual Floor and Obstacle course time scores of the mEFAP, FAP, and BBS, but again, no between-group differences were found. . Use of FES is equivalent to the AFO. Further studies should examine whether FES enables better performance in tasks involving functional mobility, activities of daily living, and balance.
    Neurorehabilitation and neural repair 02/2014; · 4.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Les technologies innovantes appliquées à la rééducation sensori-motrice dans les suites d’un accident vasculaire cérébral se sont multipliées ces 20 dernières années. À partir d’une revue de la littérature sur « Medline » et « Web of Science » entre 1990 et 2013, nous proposons une synthèse des outils disponibles et de leur niveau de validation actuel. La stimulation électrique neuromusculaire et/ou fonctionnelle a une efficacité admise dans cette indication. La robotique de rééducation a été diversement appréciée dans la littérature. Il semble qu’elle ait une certaine efficacité sur les capacités fonctionnelles lorsqu’elle est utilisée pour le membre supérieur. Son efficacité dans la rééducation à la marche est plus controversée. La réalité virtuelle est utilisée par de nombreuses équipes dans la rééducation de la motricité ou de la posture, avec un bénéfice maintenant admis. Les techniques de stimulations cérébrales non invasives (rTMS et TDCS) sont encore exploratoires dans cette indication, de la même façon que les techniques de neuro-feedback visant à utiliser l’enregistrement du signal cérébral pour agir sur la plasticité cérébrale. L’avènement de ces technologies appliquées à la rééducation est en train de révolutionner nos pratiques. Elles reposent sur les progrès des neurosciences qui nous permettent de mieux comprendre les phénomènes de plasticité neurale qui sous-tendent l’efficacité de la rééducation. L’appropriation de ces outils par les patients et les thérapeutes est une nécessité. Ces dispositifs doivent se mettre au service de la relation entre le patient et son rééducateur mais ne peuvent se substituer à ce dernier.
    Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 08/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe changes in and predictors of comfortable gait speed (GS-C) in persons with stroke after 42 weeks (w) using a foot drop stimulator (FDS, Bioness L300™) DESIGN: Secondary analysis of prospective assessments SETTING: Multicenter clinical trial PARTICIPANTS: 99 subjects >3 months post-stroke with GS-C <0.8m/sec and drop foot with a mean age of 60.7y and time post-stroke of 4.8y. GS-C was assessed at baseline and 30w with and without FDS (therapeutic effect) and 6w, 12w, 30w, 36w and 42w with FDS (total effect.) After 8 physical therapy sessions, FDS was used for ambulation over 42w. Changes in mean GS-C over time, FDS "responder" status defined as either >0.1m/sec gain GS-C [the minimal clinically important difference (MCID)] or advancing by one Perry Ambulation Category (PAC), and adverse events (AE) RESULTS: 74 (75%) and 69 (70%) of 99 subjects completed assessments at 30w and 42w, respectively. Baseline GS-C was 0.42m/sec without and 0.49m/sec with FDS. GS-C improved to 0.54m/sec at 30w without FDS (effect size = 0.75) and .54, .55, .58, .60 and .61m/sec at 6w, 12w, 30w, 36w & 42w with FDS, respectively (effect size 0.84 at 42w.) Half achieved a maximum GS-C by 12w. About 18% were PAC and 29% MCID responders for 30w therapeutic effect and 55% were PAC and 67% MCID responders for 42w total effect. After logistic regression, younger age, faster baseline GS-C and Timed Up and Go and balance emerged as the strongest predictors of FDS responders. At 42w, 60% reported a device-related AE with 92% mild and 96% anticipated. GS-C with FDS improved progressively over 42w with >50% achieving a clinically meaningful 42w total effect and 50% achieving a maximum GS-C by 12w. Younger patients with higher mobility levels may benefit most. AE were frequent, mild and reversible.
    PM&R 01/2014; · 1.37 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
111 Downloads
Available from
Jun 3, 2014