Limits...
Walking training with foot drop stimulator controlled by a tilt sensor to improve walking outcomes: a randomized controlled pilot study in patients with stroke in subacute phase.

Morone G, Fusco A, Di Capua P, Coiro P, Pratesi L - Stroke Res Treat (2012)

Bottom Line: In terms of mobility and force, ameliorations were recorded, even if not significant (Rivermead Mobility Index: P = 0.057; Manual Muscle Test: P = 0.059).Similar changes between groups were observed for independence in activities of daily living, neurological assessments, and spasticity reduction.These results highlight the potential efficacy for patients affected by a droop foot of a walking training performed with a neurostimulator in subacute phase.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Clinical Laboratory of Experimental Neurorehabilitation, I.R.C.C.S., Santa Lucia Foundation, Via Ardeatina 306, 00179 Rome, Italy.

ABSTRACT
Foot drop is a quite common problem in nervous system disorders. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has showed to be an alternative approach to correct foot drop improving walking ability in patients with stroke. In this study, twenty patients with stroke in subacute phase were enrolled and randomly divided in two groups: one group performing the NMES (i.e. Walkaide Group, WG) and the Control Group (CG) performing conventional neuromotor rehabilitation. Both groups underwent the same amount of treatment time. Significant improvements of walking speed were recorded for WG (168 ± 39%) than for CG (129 ± 29%, P = 0.032) as well as in terms of locomotion (Functional Ambulation Classification score: P = 0.023). In terms of mobility and force, ameliorations were recorded, even if not significant (Rivermead Mobility Index: P = 0.057; Manual Muscle Test: P = 0.059). Similar changes between groups were observed for independence in activities of daily living, neurological assessments, and spasticity reduction. These results highlight the potential efficacy for patients affected by a droop foot of a walking training performed with a neurostimulator in subacute phase.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean and standard deviation of the time spent to walk for 10 m by Walkaide group (WG, black) and control group (CG, grey).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3539353&req=5

fig1: Mean and standard deviation of the time spent to walk for 10 m by Walkaide group (WG, black) and control group (CG, grey).

Mentions: The primary outcome measure, that is, the time spent to walk for 10 meters, resulted is significantly affected by the interaction between group and treatment (Fdf=1,18 = 5.419; P = 0.032). As shown in Table 1, this revealed a higher improvement in terms of walking speed in WG (168 ± 39%) in respect of that of CG (129 ± 29%, P = 0.021, t-test). This mean difference (39%, CI95% = 6; 72%) had a statistical power of 81.4%. The factor group did not mainly affected the time to complete the 10mWT (Fdf=1,18 = 0.205; P = 0.656), whereas the treatment did it (Fdf=1,18 = 23.375; P < 0.001). However, as shown in Figure 1, these results were mainly due to an initial difference of the performance of the two groups, more than to a difference after treatment. In fact, the subjects of WG before the treatment with Walkaide walked slower than CG, whereas they walked quite faster of CG at the end of treatment.


Walking training with foot drop stimulator controlled by a tilt sensor to improve walking outcomes: a randomized controlled pilot study in patients with stroke in subacute phase.

Morone G, Fusco A, Di Capua P, Coiro P, Pratesi L - Stroke Res Treat (2012)

Mean and standard deviation of the time spent to walk for 10 m by Walkaide group (WG, black) and control group (CG, grey).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3539353&req=5

fig1: Mean and standard deviation of the time spent to walk for 10 m by Walkaide group (WG, black) and control group (CG, grey).
Mentions: The primary outcome measure, that is, the time spent to walk for 10 meters, resulted is significantly affected by the interaction between group and treatment (Fdf=1,18 = 5.419; P = 0.032). As shown in Table 1, this revealed a higher improvement in terms of walking speed in WG (168 ± 39%) in respect of that of CG (129 ± 29%, P = 0.021, t-test). This mean difference (39%, CI95% = 6; 72%) had a statistical power of 81.4%. The factor group did not mainly affected the time to complete the 10mWT (Fdf=1,18 = 0.205; P = 0.656), whereas the treatment did it (Fdf=1,18 = 23.375; P < 0.001). However, as shown in Figure 1, these results were mainly due to an initial difference of the performance of the two groups, more than to a difference after treatment. In fact, the subjects of WG before the treatment with Walkaide walked slower than CG, whereas they walked quite faster of CG at the end of treatment.

Bottom Line: In terms of mobility and force, ameliorations were recorded, even if not significant (Rivermead Mobility Index: P = 0.057; Manual Muscle Test: P = 0.059).Similar changes between groups were observed for independence in activities of daily living, neurological assessments, and spasticity reduction.These results highlight the potential efficacy for patients affected by a droop foot of a walking training performed with a neurostimulator in subacute phase.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Clinical Laboratory of Experimental Neurorehabilitation, I.R.C.C.S., Santa Lucia Foundation, Via Ardeatina 306, 00179 Rome, Italy.

ABSTRACT
Foot drop is a quite common problem in nervous system disorders. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has showed to be an alternative approach to correct foot drop improving walking ability in patients with stroke. In this study, twenty patients with stroke in subacute phase were enrolled and randomly divided in two groups: one group performing the NMES (i.e. Walkaide Group, WG) and the Control Group (CG) performing conventional neuromotor rehabilitation. Both groups underwent the same amount of treatment time. Significant improvements of walking speed were recorded for WG (168 ± 39%) than for CG (129 ± 29%, P = 0.032) as well as in terms of locomotion (Functional Ambulation Classification score: P = 0.023). In terms of mobility and force, ameliorations were recorded, even if not significant (Rivermead Mobility Index: P = 0.057; Manual Muscle Test: P = 0.059). Similar changes between groups were observed for independence in activities of daily living, neurological assessments, and spasticity reduction. These results highlight the potential efficacy for patients affected by a droop foot of a walking training performed with a neurostimulator in subacute phase.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus