Literature DB >> 22135711

Effect of peroneal electrical stimulation versus an ankle-foot orthosis on obstacle avoidance ability in people with stroke-related foot drop.

Roos van Swigchem1, Hanneke J R van Duijnhoven, Jasper den Boer, Alexander C Geurts, Vivian Weerdesteyn.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Walking ability of people with foot drop in the chronic phase after stroke is better with functional electrical stimulation (FES) of the peroneal nerve than without an orthotic device. However, the literature is not conclusive on whether peroneal FES also is better than an ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) in this regard.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify potential benefits of peroneal FES over an AFO with respect to the ability to negotiate a sudden obstacle.
DESIGN: The study design was a within-subject comparison between FES and AFO using repeated measures.
METHODS: Twenty-four community-dwelling people with stroke (mean age=52.6 years, SD=12.7) who regularly used a polypropylene AFO were fitted with a transcutaneous FES device. The participants' obstacle avoidance ability was tested after 2 and 8 weeks. They had to avoid 30 obstacles that were suddenly dropped on a treadmill in front of the affected leg while walking with either FES or an AFO. The obstacle avoidance success rates were determined.
RESULTS: Success rates were higher with FES than with an AFO, especially after adjustment for individual leg muscle strength. Participants with relatively low muscle strength (Motricity Index score <64) were most likely to benefit from FES regarding obstacle avoidance ability. LIMITATION: Further work is needed to determine whether the results may be generalized to other groups of people with stroke.
CONCLUSIONS: Peroneal FES seems to be superior to an AFO with regard to obstacle avoidance ability in community-dwelling people with stroke. The observed gains in obstacle avoidance ability appear to be clinically most relevant in the people with relatively low leg muscle strength.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22135711     DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20100405

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Ther        ISSN: 0031-9023


  15 in total

1.  Effects of functional electrical stimulation on gait recovery post-neurological injury during inpatient rehabilitation.

Authors:  Chad I Lairamore; Mark K Garrison; Laetitia Bourgeon; Mark Mennemeier
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  2014-08-25

2.  Reducing The Cost of Transport and Increasing Walking Distance After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Fast Locomotor Training Combined With Functional Electrical Stimulation.

Authors:  Louis N Awad; Darcy S Reisman; Ryan T Pohlig; Stuart A Binder-Macleod
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 3.919

3.  Improved gait adjustments after gait adaptability training are associated with reduced attentional demands in persons with stroke.

Authors:  Mariëlle W van Ooijen; Anita Heeren; Katrijn Smulders; Alexander C H Geurts; Thomas W J Janssen; Peter J Beek; Vivian Weerdesteyn; Melvyn Roerdink
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Correction of Footdrop Due to Multiple Sclerosis Using the STIMuSTEP Implanted Dropped Foot Stimulator.

Authors:  Paul N Taylor; Ingrid A Wilkinson Hart; Mansoor S Khan; Diana E M Slade-Sharman
Journal:  Int J MS Care       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct

5.  Quick foot placement adjustments during gait: direction matters.

Authors:  Wouter Hoogkamer; Zrinka Potocanac; Jacques Duysens
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 6.  Technological advances in interventions to enhance poststroke gait.

Authors:  Lynne R Sheffler; John Chae
Journal:  Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.784

7.  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

8.  Motor neuroprosthesis for promoting recovery of function after stroke.

Authors:  Luciana A Mendes; Illia Ndf Lima; Tulio Souza; George C do Nascimento; Vanessa R Resqueti; Guilherme Af Fregonezi
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-01-14

9.  In Vivo Demonstration of Addressable Microstimulators Powered by Rectification of Epidermically Applied Currents for Miniaturized Neuroprostheses.

Authors:  Laura Becerra-Fajardo; Antoni Ivorra
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-06       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Seven capital devices for the future of stroke rehabilitation.

Authors:  M Iosa; G Morone; A Fusco; M Bragoni; P Coiro; M Multari; V Venturiero; D De Angelis; L Pratesi; S Paolucci
Journal:  Stroke Res Treat       Date:  2012-12-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.