Training and orthotic effects related to functional electrical stimulation of the peroneal nerve in stroke*

Orthotic shorts for improving gait and walking in multiple sclerosis: a feasibility study

PURPOSE

To explore the acceptability and potential efficacy of orthotic shorts in people with multiple sclerosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This mixed-methods, cross-over study utilised qualitative data to investigate acceptability, including perceived effectiveness. Quantitative data included wear times, self-selected walking speed, spatiotemporal gait parameters, and participant-perceived walking ability. Fifteen participants were assessed with and without two pairs of custom-made shorts: one designed as an orthotic and a second looser pair. Each were worn at home for two weeks. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at the first and final appointments. Quantitative data were analysed using Cohen's d; qualitative analysis used a thematic framework. A triangulation protocol integrated qualitative and quantitative data.

RESULTS

Orthotic shorts were acceptable to most users who described improved control, stability, and function. Where shorts were less acceptable, this was due to restriction of hip flexion or appearance. Effect sizes were in the moderate category for participant-perceived walking ability and for those spatiotemporal gait parameters that reflect mediolateral stability. Small effect sizes were seen for walking speed and related spatiotemporal parameters, such as step length.

CONCLUSION

Orthotic shorts are acceptable and potentially efficacious for improving walking, stability, and function in people with multiple sclerosis. Further research and design development are warranted.Implications for rehabilitationOrthotic shorts are a type of fabric orthosis that have not been previously researched but might assist pelvic stability.Orthotic shorts appear to be acceptable to those people with multiple sclerosis who perceive themselves to be unstable around the trunk and hips.Orthotic shorts might improve gait stability and self-perceived walking ability.

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Ankle-Foot Orthoses and Functional Electrical Stimulation Post-Stroke

BACKGROUND

Level of ambulation following stroke is a long-term predictor of participation and disability. Decreased lower extremity motor control can impact ambulation and overall mobility. The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide evidence to guide clinical decision-making for the use of either ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) or functional electrical stimulation (FES) as an intervention to improve body function and structure, activity, and participation as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) for individuals with poststroke hemiplegia with decreased lower extremity motor control.

METHODS

A review of literature published through November 2019 was performed across 7 databases for all studies involving stroke and AFO or FES. Data extracted included time post-stroke, participant characteristics, device types, outcomes assessed, and intervention parameters. Outcomes were examined upon initial application and after training. Recommendations were determined on the basis of the strength of the evidence and the potential benefits, harm, risks, or costs of providing AFO or FES.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

One-hundred twenty-two meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and cohort studies were included. Strong evidence exists that AFO and FES can each increase gait speed, mobility, and dynamic balance. Moderate evidence exists that AFO and FES increase quality of life, walking endurance, and muscle activation, and weak evidence exists for improving gait kinematics. AFO or FES should not be used to decrease plantarflexor spasticity. Studies that directly compare AFO and FES do not indicate overall superiority of one over the other. But evidence suggests that AFO may lead to more compensatory effects while FES may lead to more therapeutic effects. Due to the potential for gains at any phase post-stroke, the most appropriate device for an individual may change, and reassessments should be completed to ensure the device is meeting the individual's needs.

LIMITATIONS

This CPG cannot address the effects of one type of AFO over another for the majority of outcomes, as studies used a variety of AFO types and rarely differentiated effects. The recommendations also do not address the severity of hemiparesis, and most studies included participants with varied baseline ambulation ability.

SUMMARY

This CPG suggests that AFO and FES both lead to improvements post-stroke. Future studies should examine timing of provision, device types, intervention duration and delivery, longer term follow-up, responders versus nonresponders, and individuals with greater impairments.

DISCLAIMER

These recommendations are intended as a guide for clinicians to optimize rehabilitation outcomes for people with poststroke hemiplegia who have decreased lower extremity motor control that impacts ambulation and overall mobility.A Video Abstract is available as supplemental digital content from the authors (available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A335).

Clinical outcome measures to evaluate the effects of orthotic management post-stroke: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To identify, and classify, according to International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), clinically applicable outcome measures that have been used to evaluate lower limb orthotic management post-stroke and to investigate which outcome measures recorded the largest effect sizes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic searches were performed in Pubmed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Cinahl, Scopus and Embase databases from inception to May 2020. Articles were included if they investigated clinical outcomes in people post-stroke who had received a lower-limb orthotic intervention.

RESULTS

88 articles underwent full-text review and 54 were included in the review, which was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) principles. 48 different outcome measures were identified; effect sizes were able to be calculated from 39 studies. The most frequently applied outcome measures were the 10-metre Walk Test and the timed-up-and-go test. Outcome measures that recorded large effect sizes in two or more studies were the 10-metre Walk Test, Functional Reach Test, and Physiological Cost Index. When coded according to the ICF, the most frequently represented codes were d450 (Walking) and d455 (moving around).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that outcome measures related to mobility (ICF chapter d4) are most often applied to evaluate orthotic management post-stroke. Effect sizes appear to be greatest in outcome measures related to velocity, balance, and energy expenditure.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe 10-meter Walk Test appears to have the greatest effect size when evaluating orthotic management post-stroke.While outcome measures related to mobility are commonly applied when evaluating orthotic management post-stroke, rehabilitation professionals should consider complementing these with measures representing the participation domain of the ICF.

The safety of electrical stimulation in patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators: A systematic review

Introduction

A number of patients are excluded from electrical stimulation treatment because there is concern that electrical stimulation could cause electromagnetic interference with pacemakers and implanted cardioverter defibrillators. The decision to use electrical stimulation in these patients needs to be supported by an assessment of benefit and harm.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the risk of electromagnetic interference between electrical stimulation and pacemakers or implanted cardioverter defibrillators. We included the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE in the time period between 1966 and 26 August 2016.

Results

18 papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria (eight safety studies and ten case studies). Although we were unable to accurately estimate the risk of electromagnetic interference, the studies revealed that patients having electrical stimulation of the lower limb are less susceptible to electromagnetic interference.

Conclusions

The results suggest that electrical stimulation could be used safely to help drop foot in patients with pacemakers or implanted cardioverter defibrillators. However, in order to obtain an accurate estimate of the risk of electromagnetic interference, a large, long-term, and intervention-specific safety study is required. Until such a study is undertaken, electrical stimulation should be used with caution in patients with pacemakers and implanted cardioverter defibrillators.