MedStar Authors catalog › Details for: Effect of a foot-drop stimulator and ankle-foot orthosis on walking performance after stroke: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Effect of a foot-drop stimulator and ankle-foot orthosis on walking performance after stroke: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

by Dromerick, Alexander W.
Citation: Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair. 27(7):579-91, 2013 Sep..Journal: Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.ISSN: 1545-9683.Full author list: Everaert DG; Stein RB; Abrams GM; Dromerick AW; Francisco GE; Hafner BJ; Huskey TN; Munin MC; Nolan KJ; Kufta CV.UI/PMID: 23558080.Subject(s): Adult | Aged | *Ankle/ir [Innervation] | Cross-Over Studies | *Electric Stimulation Therapy | Female | Foot Joints/ir [Innervation] | *Foot Orthoses | *Gait Disorders, Neurologic/et [Etiology] | *Gait Disorders, Neurologic/th [Therapy] | Humans | Male | Middle Aged | Physical Therapy Modalities | *Stroke/co [Complications] | Stroke/th [Therapy] | Time Factors | Treatment Outcome | WalkingInstitution(s): MedStar National Rehabilitation NetworkActivity type: Journal Article.Medline article type(s): Clinical Trial | Journal Article | Multicenter Study | Randomized Controlled Trial | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tDigital Object Identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1545968313481278 (Click here) Abbreviated citation: Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 27(7):579-91, 2013 Sep.Local Holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 2006 - 2009, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - March 2006.Abstract: BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of functional electrical stimulation in the management of foot drop after stroke.Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in walking performance with the WalkAide (WA) foot-drop stimulator and a conventional ankle-foot orthosis (AFO).Abstract: METHODS: Individuals with stroke within the previous 12 months and residual foot drop were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized controlled, crossover trial. Subjects were assigned to 1 of 3 parallel arms for 12 weeks (6 weeks/device): arm 1 (WA-AFO), n = 38; arm 2 (AFO-WA), n = 31; arm 3 (AFO-AFO), n = 24. Primary outcomes were walking speed and Physiological Cost Index for the Figure-of-8 walking test. Secondary measures included 10-m walking speed and perceived safety during this test, general mobility, and device preference for arms 1 and 2 for continued use. Walking tests were performed with (On) and without a device (Off) at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks.Abstract: RESULTS: Both WA and AFO had significant orthotic (On-Off difference), therapeutic (change over time when Off), and combined (change over time On vs baseline Off) effects on walking speed. An AFO also had a significant orthotic effect on Physiological Cost Index. The WA had a higher, but not significantly different therapeutic effect on speed than an AFO, whereas an AFO had a greater orthotic effect than the WA (significant at 12 weeks). Combined effects on speed after 6 weeks did not differ between devices. Users felt as safe with the WA as with an AFO, but significantly more users preferred the WA.Abstract: CONCLUSIONS: Both devices produce equivalent functional gains.

Powered by Koha