Nathaniel S Makowski1, Rudi Kobetic, Lisa M Lombardo, Kevin M Foglyano, Gilles Pinault, Stephen M Selkirk, Ronald J Triolo. 1. From the Advanced Platform Technology Center (NSM, RK, LML, KMF, GP, SMS, RJT) and Functional Electrical Stimulation Center (NSM, SMS), Louis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio; and Departments of Neurology (SMS), Orthopaedics (RJT), and Biomedical Engineering (RJT), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to quantify the effects of a fully implanted pulse generator to activate or augment actions of hip, knee, and ankle muscles after stroke. DESIGN: The subject was a 64-year-old man with left hemiparesis resulting from hemorrhagic stroke 21 months before participation. He received an 8-channel implanted pulse generator and intramuscular stimulating electrodes targeting unilateral hip, knee, and ankle muscles on the paretic side. After implantation, a stimulation pattern was customized to assist with hip, knee, and ankle movement during gait.The subject served as his own concurrent and longitudinal control with and without stimulation. Outcome measures included 10-m walk and 6-minute timed walk to assess gait speed, maximum walk time, and distance to measure endurance, and quantitative motion analysis to evaluate spatial-temporal characteristics. Assessments were repeated under 3 conditions: (1) volitional walking at baseline, (2) volitional walking after training, and (3) walking with stimulation after training. RESULTS: Volitional gait speed improved with training from 0.29 m/s to 0.35 m/s and further increased to 0.72 m/s with stimulation. Most spatial-temporal characteristics improved and represented more symmetrical and dynamic gait. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that a multijoint approach to implanted neuroprostheses can provide clinically relevant improvements in gait after stroke. TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: : Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to do the following: (1) Describe the rationale for evaluating a multijoint implanted neuroprosthesis to improvewalkingafter stroke; (2)Understand the study design and conclusions that can be inferred as a result of the design; and (3) Discuss the statistical significance and clinical relevance of changes between (a) volitional walking at baseline, (b) volitional walking after training, and (c) walking with stimulation after training. LEVEL: Advanced ACCREDITATION:: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this activity for a maximum of 1.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to quantify the effects of a fully implanted pulse generator to activate or augment actions of hip, knee, and ankle muscles after stroke. DESIGN: The subject was a 64-year-old man with left hemiparesis resulting from hemorrhagic stroke 21 months before participation. He received an 8-channel implanted pulse generator and intramuscular stimulating electrodes targeting unilateral hip, knee, and ankle muscles on the paretic side. After implantation, a stimulation pattern was customized to assist with hip, knee, and ankle movement during gait.The subject served as his own concurrent and longitudinal control with and without stimulation. Outcome measures included 10-m walk and 6-minute timed walk to assess gait speed, maximum walk time, and distance to measure endurance, and quantitative motion analysis to evaluate spatial-temporal characteristics. Assessments were repeated under 3 conditions: (1) volitional walking at baseline, (2) volitional walking after training, and (3) walking with stimulation after training. RESULTS: Volitional gait speed improved with training from 0.29 m/s to 0.35 m/s and further increased to 0.72 m/s with stimulation. Most spatial-temporal characteristics improved and represented more symmetrical and dynamic gait. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that a multijoint approach to implanted neuroprostheses can provide clinically relevant improvements in gait after stroke. TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: : Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to do the following: (1) Describe the rationale for evaluating a multijoint implanted neuroprosthesis to improvewalkingafter stroke; (2)Understand the study design and conclusions that can be inferred as a result of the design; and (3) Discuss the statistical significance and clinical relevance of changes between (a) volitional walking at baseline, (b) volitional walking after training, and (c) walking with stimulation after training. LEVEL: Advanced ACCREDITATION:: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this activity for a maximum of 1.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: T George Hornby; Donielle D Campbell; Jennifer H Kahn; Tobey Demott; Jennifer L Moore; Heidi R Roth Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-05-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Julie K Tilson; Katherine J Sullivan; Steven Y Cen; Dorian K Rose; Cherisha H Koradia; Stanley P Azen; Pamela W Duncan Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2009-12-18
Authors: Francois Bethoux; Helen L Rogers; Karen J Nolan; Gary M Abrams; Thiru Annaswamy; Murray Brandstater; Barbara Browne; Judith M Burnfield; Wuwei Feng; Mitchell J Freed; Carolyn Geis; Jason Greenberg; Mark Gudesblatt; Farha Ikramuddin; Arun Jayaraman; Steven A Kautz; Helmi L Lutsep; Sangeetha Madhavan; Jill Meilahn; William S Pease; Noel Rao; Subramani Seetharama; Pramod Sethi; Margaret A Turk; Roi Ann Wallis; Conrad Kufta Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Arlene Schmid; Pamela W Duncan; Stephanie Studenski; Sue Min Lai; Lorie Richards; Subashan Perera; Samuel S Wu Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-05-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Nathaniel Makowski; Alexandru Campean; Joris Lambrecht; James Buckett; James Coburn; Ronald Hart; Michael Miller; Fred Montague; Timothy Crish; Michael Fu; Kevin Kilgore; P Hunter Peckham; Brian Smith Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 5.234
Authors: Ronald J Triolo; Stephanie Nogan Bailey; Kevin M Foglyano; Rudi Kobetic; Lisa M Lombardo; Michael E Miller; Gilles Pinault Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2017-09-09 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Nathaniel S Makowski; Rudi Kobetic; Kevin M Foglyano; Lisa M Lombardo; Stephen M Selkirk; Gilles Pinault; Ronald J Triolo Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 3.412