Literature DB >> 20140406

Is transcutaneous peroneal stimulation beneficial to patients with chronic stroke using an ankle-foot orthosis? A within-subjects study of patients' satisfaction, walking speed and physical activity level.

Roos van Swigchem1, Judith Vloothuis, Jasper den Boer, Vivian Weerdesteyn, Alexander C H Geurts.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether community-dwelling chronic stroke patients wearing an ankle-foot orthosis would benefit from changing to functional electrical stimulation of the peroneal nerve.
METHODS: In 26 community-dwelling chronic (> 6 months post-onset) patients after stroke, their ankle-foot orthosis was replaced by a surface-based functional electrical stimulation device (NESS L300). Comfortable walking speed over 10 m was measured at baseline with the ankle-foot orthosis and after 2 and 8 weeks with both ankle-foot orthosis and functional electrical stimulation. The level of physical activity was assessed with a pedometer, and patients' satisfaction was assessed with a questionnaire at baseline and at week 8 regarding ankle-foot orthosis and functional electrical stimulation, respectively.
RESULTS: Ankle-foot orthosis and functional electrical stimulation were equally effective with regard to walking speed and activity level. The participants were more satisfied with functional electrical stimulation than with their ankle-foot orthosis regarding the effort and stability of walking, quality of the gait pattern, walking distance, comfort of wearing and appearance of the device.
CONCLUSION: The patients judged functional electrical stimulation superior to their ankle-foot orthosis, but measurements of walking speed and physical activity could not objectify the experienced benefits of functional electrical stimulation. Other outcome measures focusing on the stability and effort of ambulation may objectify the perceived benefits of functional electrical stimulation in community-dwelling chronic stroke patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20140406     DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0489

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Rehabil Med        ISSN: 1650-1977            Impact factor:   2.912


  10 in total

1.  [Functional electrostimulation for drop foot treatment : Clinical outcome].

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

2.  Restoring mobility after stroke: first kinematic results from a pilot study with a hybrid drop foot stimulator.

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

3.  Subjective outcome following neurostimulator implantation as drop foot therapy due to lesions in the central nervous system-midterm results.

Authors:  D Yao; C Stukenborg-Colsman; S Ettinger; L Claassen; C Plaass; N Martinelli; K Daniilidis
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2019-05-03

4.  Randomized controlled trial of surface peroneal nerve stimulation for motor relearning in lower limb hemiparesis.

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

5.  Spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic effects of a peroneal nerve stimulator versus an ankle foot orthosis in hemiparetic gait.

Authors:  Lynne R Sheffler; Stephanie Nogan Bailey; Richard D Wilson; John Chae
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 3.919

6.  Gait training assisted by multi-channel functional electrical stimulation early after stroke: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Maijke van Bloemendaal; Sicco A Bus; Charlotte E de Boer; Frans Nollet; Alexander C H Geurts; Anita Beelen
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  The long-term effects of an implantable drop foot stimulator on gait in hemiparetic patients.

Authors:  Agnes Sturma; Othmar Schuhfried; Timothy Hasenoehrl; Clemens Ambrozy; Stefan Salminger; Laura A Hruby; Johannes A Mayer; Kirsten Götz-Neumann; Richard Crevenna; Michaela M Pinter; Oskar C Aszmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Prediction of setup times for an advanced upper limb functional electrical stimulation system.

Authors:  Christine Smith; Laurence Kenney; David Howard; Karen Waring; Minxgu Sun; Helen Luckie; Nicholas Hardiker; Sarah Cotterill
Journal:  J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng       Date:  2018-11-18

Review 9.  Review of devices used in neuromuscular electrical stimulation for stroke rehabilitation.

Authors:  Kotaro Takeda; Genichi Tanino; Hiroyuki Miyasaka
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2017-08-24

Review 10.  Advances in neuroprosthetic management of foot drop: a review.

Authors:  Javier Gil-Castillo; Fady Alnajjar; Aikaterini Koutsou; Diego Torricelli; Juan C Moreno
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2020-03-25       Impact factor: 4.262

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.