OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of functional electric stimulation (FES) with that of a hinged ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) for assisting foot clearance, gait speed, and endurance and to determine whether there is added benefit in using FES in conjunction with the hinged AFO in persons with incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI). DESIGN: Within-subject comparison of walking under 4 conditions: AFO, FES, AFO and FES, and no orthosis. A plastic hinged AFO was used for all AFO conditions. SETTING: Tertiary rehabilitation center. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen subjects with incomplete SCI. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The self-selected gait speed, 6-minute walk distance, and foot clearance values were compared between conditions. RESULTS: Gait speed increased with FES ( P <.05) and with the AFO ( P =.06). Six-minute walk distance also increased with the AFO ( P <.05). No difference was found between the 2 forms of orthoses in either gait speed or endurance. The greatest increase in gait speed and endurance from the no-orthosis condition occurred with the combined AFO and FES condition. Foot clearance improved with FES but not with AFO. Subjects whose gait speed increased with FES had weaker hip flexors, knee flexors, and ankle dorsiflexors than those who did not benefit from FES. CONCLUSIONS: Both FES and the hinged AFO promote walking and FES is only superior to the AFO in increasing foot-clearance values. The hinged AFO and FES together may offer advantages over either device alone.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of functional electric stimulation (FES) with that of a hinged ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) for assisting foot clearance, gait speed, and endurance and to determine whether there is added benefit in using FES in conjunction with the hinged AFO in persons with incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI). DESIGN: Within-subject comparison of walking under 4 conditions: AFO, FES, AFO and FES, and no orthosis. A plastic hinged AFO was used for all AFO conditions. SETTING: Tertiary rehabilitation center. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen subjects with incomplete SCI. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The self-selected gait speed, 6-minute walk distance, and foot clearance values were compared between conditions. RESULTS: Gait speed increased with FES ( P <.05) and with the AFO ( P =.06). Six-minute walk distance also increased with the AFO ( P <.05). No difference was found between the 2 forms of orthoses in either gait speed or endurance. The greatest increase in gait speed and endurance from the no-orthosis condition occurred with the combined AFO and FES condition. Foot clearance improved with FES but not with AFO. Subjects whose gait speed increased with FES had weaker hip flexors, knee flexors, and ankle dorsiflexors than those who did not benefit from FES. CONCLUSIONS: Both FES and the hinged AFO promote walking and FES is only superior to the AFO in increasing foot-clearance values. The hinged AFO and FES together may offer advantages over either device alone.
Authors: R B Stein; M Bélanger; G Wheeler; M Wieler; D B Popović; A Prochazka; L A Davis Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 1993-09 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Lysanne A F de Jong; Yvette L Kerkum; Tom de Groot; Marije Vos-van der Hulst; Ilse J W van Nes; Noel L W Keijsers Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.576