OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of the Odstock Dropped-Foot Stimulator (ODFS), a transcutaneous peroneal nerve stimulation device, versus an ankle foot orthosis (AFO) in improving functional ambulation of chronic stroke survivors. INTERVENTION: Fourteen chronic stroke survivors with foot-drop participated in the study. Participants received ambulation training under 3 test conditions: 1) ODFS, 2) customized AFO, and 3) no device. Each participant was evaluated using the modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile under the 3 test conditions. All participants were evaluated with a post-evaluation survey to solicit device feedback and preferences. RESULTS:Functional ambulation with the AFO was significantly improved, relative to no device, on the floor (P = 0.000), carpet (P = 0.013), and "up and go" test (P = 0.042). There was a trend toward significance on the obstacle (P = 0.092) and stair (P = 0.067) trials. Functional ambulation with the ODFS was significantly improved, relative to no device, on the carpet(P = 0.004). A trend toward significance on floor (P = 0.081), obstacle (P = 0.092), and stair (P = 0.079) trials was observed. The difference in functional ambulation between the AFO and ODFS showed a trend toward statistical significance on floor (P = 0.065) and up and go (P = 0.082) trials only. Given a choice between the ODFS and AFO for long-term correction of footdrop, participants indicated a preference for the ODFS. CONCLUSION: The AFO and the ODFS may be comparable in their effect on improving functional ambulation as compared to no device. Specific characteristics of the ODFS may make it a preferred intervention by stroke survivors. More rigorously controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of the Odstock Dropped-Foot Stimulator (ODFS), a transcutaneous peroneal nerve stimulation device, versus an ankle foot orthosis (AFO) in improving functional ambulation of chronic stroke survivors. INTERVENTION: Fourteen chronic stroke survivors with foot-drop participated in the study. Participants received ambulation training under 3 test conditions: 1) ODFS, 2) customized AFO, and 3) no device. Each participant was evaluated using the modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile under the 3 test conditions. All participants were evaluated with a post-evaluation survey to solicit device feedback and preferences. RESULTS: Functional ambulation with the AFO was significantly improved, relative to no device, on the floor (P = 0.000), carpet (P = 0.013), and "up and go" test (P = 0.042). There was a trend toward significance on the obstacle (P = 0.092) and stair (P = 0.067) trials. Functional ambulation with the ODFS was significantly improved, relative to no device, on the carpet(P = 0.004). A trend toward significance on floor (P = 0.081), obstacle (P = 0.092), and stair (P = 0.079) trials was observed. The difference in functional ambulation between the AFO and ODFS showed a trend toward statistical significance on floor (P = 0.065) and up and go (P = 0.082) trials only. Given a choice between the ODFS and AFO for long-term correction of footdrop, participants indicated a preference for the ODFS. CONCLUSION: The AFO and the ODFS may be comparable in their effect on improving functional ambulation as compared to no device. Specific characteristics of the ODFS may make it a preferred intervention by stroke survivors. More rigorously controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Authors: D Yao; E Jakubowitz; S Ettinger; L Claassen; C Plaass; C Stukenborg-Colsman; K Daniilidis Journal: Orthopade Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 1.087
Authors: D Yao; E Jakubowitz; K Tecante; M Lahner; S Ettinger; L Claassen; C Plaass; C Stukenborg-Colsman; K Daniilidis Journal: Musculoskelet Surg Date: 2016-09-01
Authors: Trisha M Kesar; Ramu Perumal; Angela Jancosko; Darcy S Reisman; Katherine S Rudolph; Jill S Higginson; Stuart A Binder-Macleod Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2009-11-19
Authors: Jayme S Knutson; Kristine Hansen; Jennifer Nagy; Stephanie N Bailey; Douglas D Gunzler; Lynne R Sheffler; John Chae Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Lynne R Sheffler; Paul N Taylor; Douglas D Gunzler; Jaap H Buurke; Maarten J Ijzerman; John Chae Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 3.966