| | A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Implantable 2-Channel Peroneal Nerve Stimulator on Walking Speed and Activity in Poststroke HemiplegiaAbstract Kottink AI, Hermens HJ, Nene AV, Tenniglo MJ, van der Aa HE, Buschman HP, IJzerman MJ. A randomized controlled trial of an implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulator on walking speed and activity in poststroke hemiplegia. ObjectiveTo determine the effect of a new implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulator on walking speed and daily activities, in comparison with the usual treatment in chronic stroke survivors with a drop foot. DesignRandomized controlled trial. SettingAll subjects were measured 5 times in the gait laboratory. ParticipantsTwenty-nine stroke survivors with chronic hemiplegia with drop foot who fulfill the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. InterventionThe intervention group received an implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulator for correction of their drop foot. The control group continued using their conventional walking device, consisting of an ankle-foot orthosis, orthopedic shoes, or no device. Main Outcome MeasuresWalking speed, assessed both by a six-minute walk test (6MWT) and by using a 10-m walkway, was selected as primary outcome measure and activity monitoring data, consisting of percentage time spent on stepping, standing, and sitting/lying were selected as secondary outcome measure. ResultsFunctional electric stimulation (FES) resulted in a 23% improvement of walking speed measured with the 6MWT, whereas the improvement in the control group was only 3% (P=.010). Comfortable walking speed measured on a 10-m walkway was also significantly improved in favor of FES (P=.038). The percentage time spent on stepping deteriorated with 3% in the intervention and 0.8% in control group, which was not statistically significant between both groups (P=.13). ConclusionsThe present study shows a clinically relevant effect of the implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulator on walking speed in the sample of stroke survivors included in our study. FOOT DROP OR DROP FOOT is a simple term that describes a rather complex problem. A variety of conditions, such as dorsiflexor injuries, peripheral nerve injuries, stroke, neuropathies, drug toxicities, or diabetes can be associated with drop foot. Depending on the cause, drop foot may be temporary or permanent. It can be defined as a significant weakness or absence of ankle and toe dorsiflexors. These muscles assist in clearing the foot during swing phase and control plantarflexion of the foot on heel strike. Weakness or absence of this group of muscles associated with imbalance between invertors and evertors results in an equinovarus deformity. Walking becomes a challenge due to the patient’s inability to control the foot at the ankle. In fact, due to predominance of extensor synergy, hip and knee flexion are usually both reduced which further lengthens the limb functionally. Accordingly, many stroke survivors use circumduction and hip hiking and on occasion vaulting in order to compensate. This article focuses on drop foot in subjects with chronic hemiplegia after stroke. Drop foot after stroke is thought to be caused partly by poor active control of the anterior tibial muscle and by increased and inappropriate tone in the muscles of the leg, particularly the calf.1 Functional electric stimulation (FES) is the clinical application of electric current to the intact nerves of the body, in order to generate a muscle contraction. This contraction is then incorporated into a functional activity, for example, walking. FES systems for the treatment of drop foot are in clinical use in significant numbers, especially the surface Odstock Drop Foot Stimulator.2, 3, 4 These studies showed an increased walking speed and a reduction in Physiological Cost Index (PCI), which is a measure for energy cost. The perception of the users was that the Odstock stimulator was of clinical benefit and therefore the compliance was very high. In a systematic review,5 the results of 8 studies were analyzed to assess the orthotic effect of FES on walking in stroke survivors with a drop foot. The pooled effect size for walking speed was .13m/s (range, .07−0.2m/s) or 38% (range, 22.18%−53.8%). FES also seemed to have a positive orthotic effect on the PCI. Recently, another meta-analysis6 was published where the therapeutic effect of FES on walking speed in stroke survivors was determined. A significant mean difference in walking speed of .18m/s was found, indicating the effectiveness of FES treatment. At present, only 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) examined the effect of common peroneal nerve stimulation on walking speed in stroke survivors with chronic hemiplegia.7 The study reported a significant improvement of 20.5% in walking speed in the FES group, whereas the control group, who received physiotherapy (PT) only, showed a nonsignificant improvement of 5.2%. However, this RCT did not use an ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) as the control device. A comparison was made between walking with FES versus no treatment. In clinical practice, the conventional treatment of a drop foot is an AFO, which is most often a plastic support worn in the shoe to keep the ankle in a neutral position. An interesting aspect that has not been clarified yet is the additional value of the peroneal nerve stimulator in comparison with an AFO as the control device. Surface-based FES is the common approach in the clinical setting, but there are several problems with this approach including difficulty with electrode positioning and skin allergy.3 Assuming that the drop foot requires a permanent solution, an implantable system might be considered. Potential advantages include stability of electrode position, easier donning and doffing of the system, and reduced pain and skin irritation. Several implantable systems have been developed in the past.8, 9 These were 1-channel stimulators, which did not allow for differential activation of peroneus and anterior tibial muscles for inversion-eversion balance post surgery. Accordingly, an implantable device with 2 independent channels was developed.10 The aim of the present RCT was to determine the effect of an implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulator on walking speed and physical activity in comparison with the usual treatment in stroke survivors with a drop foot. We hypothesized that the intervention group would improve their walking speed by at least .20m/s, defined by Perry et al11 as clinically relevant over a device use period of over 6 months. Furthermore, we expected that the intervention group would show an increase in physical activity at the end of the trial. No changes in the control group were expected in both outcome measures. Methods  Study Design We conducted this study as an RCT and the CONSORT statement was used to report the trial.12 All subjects were assessed 5 times in the gait laboratory. The baseline measurement took place about 1 week before the randomization procedure, and the follow-up measurements were performed 4, 8, 12, and 26 weeks after the surgical procedure in the intervention group. Subjects assigned to the control group were measured in the same weeks as subjects assigned to the intervention group. Walking speed, measured both by the six-minute walk test (6MWT)13 and on a 10-m walkway, was defined as the primary outcome measure. The 6MWT was measured only during baseline, week 12, and week 26. Comfortable walking speed, measured on a 10-m walkway, was measured during all assessments. Physical activity,14 the secondary outcome measure, was measured at baseline and at week 26 by monitoring a randomly selected group of subjects from both the intervention and control groups. Unfortunately, it was not possible to monitor all participating subjects, because only 2 activPAL systemsa were available during the trial. All measurements were performed by the same examiners (AVM). Instructing the subjects in the intervention group on the proper use of the peroneal nerve stimulator and assessment of stimulation levels of the 2 output channels took place on the same day as the outcomes assessment. This was done for 2 reasons: (1) to keep the number of visits similar for both study groups so that the same amount of attention was paid to both groups; and (2) to save time and travel costs in the intervention group. If problems were experienced by the patients they were instructed to report them immediately, so that they could be resolved as soon as possible. Blinding of both the study personnel and participants was not possible due to the surgical procedures. All data were analyzed according to an intention-to-treat principle, which means that all participants in the trial were analyzed according to the treatment to which they were allocated, whether they received it or not. The Stimulation System The implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulatorb consists of an external transmitter with a built-in antenna, a foot switch, and implantable components consisting of the stimulator, the 2 leads, and the bipolar intraneural electrodes (fig 1).10, 15 Transmitter The transmitter uses a single 40-mm diameter transmission coil that transmits alternately on 2 frequencies. This switching results in a pulse repetition rate of 30Hz on each channel. The amplitudes of the monophasic pulses modulated on each carrier wave are controlled separately. The transmitter weighs approximately 0.1kg and is attached with a strap on the lateral side of the lower leg, over the site of the implant, just below the knee. A footswitch placed under the heel of the patient’s foot inside the shoe determines the on-and-off switching of the stimulation. The transmitter battery is charged overnight. Implanted stimulator The implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulator is a passive device, receiving information carried by the radiofrequency signals and converting them into the stimulation pulses of the desired amplitude and frequency. The receiver block is approximately 33mm in diameter and 6mm thick. It contains 2 independent and galvanically separate electric circuits built on a ceramic substrate 29mm in diameter. The 2 circuits are tuned to operate at different frequencies, namely, 1 and 2MHz, allowing them to be individually controlled by the transmitter. This further reduces the risk of cross-talk between the channels. The electronic circuits of the receiver block are encapsulated in silicone rubber elastomer. The electrodes are placed under the epineurium of the nerve, providing good mechanical stability and, due to the proximity to the nerve fascicles, low stimulation currents can be used. The 2 cables that connect the receiver block to the electrode arrays are composed of 2 helically wound platinum wire conductors with enamel insulation. The intertwined helixes are encased in silicone rubber elastomer. The electrodes are surgically positioned at 2 distinct locations, which are determined during test stimulation with a hook electrode combined with visual inspection of the generated movement. One electrode is placed under the epineurium of the superficial peroneal nerve (SPN) (eversion) and the other under the epineurium of the deep peroneal nerve (DPN) (dorsiflexion). The stimulation pulses have an asymmetric biphasic charge balanced waveform. Surgical procedure For patients receiving the implant, we performed a presurgical nerve conduction velocity measurement to check the integrity of the deep and superficial branches of the peroneal nerve. The surgical procedure was performed under general or spinal anesthesia. The patient’s knee was placed in a flexed position to relax the common peroneal nerve (CPN). An incision of approximately 50mm along the course of the CPN was made, beginning just below the head of the fibulae. The CPN and its 2 branches, the DPN and the SPN, were visually identified. Nerve identity was checked using a surgical nerve stimulator and hooked electrodes. The response to stimulation of each nerve was checked at several stimulation sites, along and around the nerve. When the site for optimal responses was identified on both nerves during test stimulation, a small incision through the epineurium at each of the 2 nerves was made. At each of the 2 sites, an electrode was inserted underneath the epineurium, which was fixed in place using sutures or tissue col fixative, a surgical glue. Using tags, positioned approximately 15mm from the end of the electrode, the leads were sutured to the fascia of the underlying tibialis muscle. The leads were arranged in such a way as to reduce as far as possible the possibility of mechanical loading on the electrode sites resulting from muscle activity. The receiver body was placed in a subcutaneous pocket. Several test stimulations took place before closing the wound. Two weeks after the surgery the wound was checked and a first test stimulation took place. In the third week, stimulation during walking was tested and the stimulator was taken home by the patient. The use of the stimulator was gradually increased over 2 weeks to prevent severe muscle pain and fatigue. After this period patients were allowed to use the system all day. Measurements Assessment of 6MWT The 6MWT was used to estimate the walking speed during daily activity. Butland et al16 reported that results of the 6MWT are highly reproducible and show moderate to strong correlations with comparable outcome measures. An oval course with known distance was clearly defined in the gait laboratory. The distance walked in 6 minutes at a comfortable walking speed was recorded using a stopwatch. Subjects were allowed to use a walking stick if necessary and this was recorded. The condition during baseline was the standard for the follow-up measurements. During baseline, all subjects walked with their conventional walking aid for the correction of their drop foot. During the follow-up measurements, the control group walked with their conventional walking aid and the intervention group walked with the implantable 2-channel drop foot stimulator. Walking speed was calculated by dividing the walking distance by 360 (6min = 360s). Assessment of walking speed We instructed patients to walk at a comfortable walking speed in the gait laboratory on a 10-m walkway; no other instructions were given. Walking speed was measured automatically by using the Vicon system,c consisting of 2 infrared beams over a distance of 7.5m. To exclude the influence of acceleration and deceleration at the beginning and end of the walkway, 1.5m were allowed at the start and finish of the walkway. Walking speed measured on a 10-m walkway was found to be a valid, reliable and responsive outcome measure.17, 18 Control subjects were asked to perform the walk 4 times without and 4 times with their conventional walking aid during all measurements. At baseline, intervention group subjects were asked to walk 4 times without and 4 times with their conventional walking aid. During the follow-up measurements, they were asked to walk 4 times without and 4 times with stimulation. All subjects were allowed to use a walking stick if needed and this was recorded. The condition during baseline was the standard for the follow-up measurements. In each walking condition, the first walk was excluded from analysis. For each walking condition a mean walking speed was calculated by averaging the 3 remaining walking sessions. Assessment of activity level We used the activPAL professional to electronically monitor the level of activity in patients’ home environment. The activPAL is an accelerometer based measurement device used to record subjects’ primary physical activities (stepping, standing, sitting/lying) during their daily life. Data from the activPAL have been shown to be both valid and reliable.14 The device was fixed using an adhesive tape on the mid-line of the thigh, midway between hip and knee. Because only 2 activPAL systems were available during the trial, it was not possible to monitor all participating subjects. Therefore, 10 subjects of the control group and 11 subjects of the intervention group were randomly selected to be monitored over a 5-day period, with exception of the weekend, through all waking hours during 2 evaluation periods. The first evaluation period was performed at baseline and the second evaluation period was performed at week 26. The selected outcome parameters were the percentage time spent on stepping, standing, and sitting/lying. Mean values were calculated by averaging the values found on the 5 recorded days. Statistical Analysis We performed a power analysis based on estimates that were obtained from the pooled analysis in a previous review from our group.5 The review intended to analyze the orthotic effect of FES on the improvement of walking in stroke patients with a drop foot. Data on walking speed of 4 clinical papers were pooled to estimate a mean difference ± standard deviation (SD) of .134±.124m/s. The following numbers were used for the power analysis: mean 1, .000±.124; mean 2, .134±.124; δ=.134; α=.05; and power, .80. The power calculation resulted in a number of 14 subjects in each group. Baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were compared to evaluate the success of randomization. Walking speed parameters were tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilks test, indicating a normal distribution for walking speed values (P>.05). We used linear mixed-model analyses to determine the overall orthotic effect of FES on both walking speed parameters when compared with the conventional treatment. An advantage of this method is that all available data could be included in the analysis, even if some data were missing. Group (FES, conventional treatment), time outcome assessments (−6, 4, 8, 12, 26wk), and the interaction between group and time were entered as terms in the model. The interaction is used to test differences between both groups in the change in outcome measured over time. Differences between and within both groups over the period between baseline and week 26 were evaluated. The model was also used by us to measure the strength of association between both walking parameters. Post hoc tests were performed for both walking speed parameters with Sidak-adjusted multiple comparisons. Because of the non-normal distribution of the activPAL data (Shapiro-Wilks test, P<.05), we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare the activPAL data in both groups between both evaluation periods. The significance level α was set at .05 for all tests. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSSd for Windows. Results Six-Minute Walk Test Figure 3 shows both the mean walking distance that was reached during the 6MWT in both groups and the calculated walking speeds. Because no difference in baseline values was present between both groups, no correction for baseline value was necessary in the analysis. A significant difference between both groups was found when all assessments were taken into the linear mixed model (P=.010), showing a positive effect of FES on the performance of the 6MWT. At the first follow-up assessment (week 12), both the intervention and control group showed an improvement in the performance of the 6MWT. However, post hoc analysis showed that the change in walking speed at 12 weeks relative to baseline did not differ significantly between groups (P=.49). At 26 weeks, the intervention group continued to show improvements, whereas the control group exhibited some deterioration. Post hoc analysis showed that the change in walking speed at 26 weeks relative to baseline now differed significantly between groups (P=.049). Walking Speed Figure 4 shows the results of the assessments for both groups obtained on all different walking speed conditions. Because there was no difference in baseline values, correction for baseline value was not included in the analysis. When no walking device was used, no significant difference in walking speed between groups was found when all assessments were taken into the linear mixed model (P=.152). The changes within both the intervention and the control group over time, relative to their baseline values, were also not statistically significant (P=.812, P=.112, respectively). When the control group used their walking aid and the intervention group used their FES, the linear mixed model indicated significant differences between groups (P=.038). Walking speed remained constant over time within the control group (P=.572). The intervention group showed a small deterioration in walking speed immediately after starting with the FES treatment (week 4), followed by an improvement in walking speed when FES was used for a longer period. Overall, when baseline was compared with the last follow-up assessment, the change in walking speed within the intervention group over time was statistically significant (P=.01). When comparing only the last follow-up assessment with baseline between both groups, a trend toward statistically significant effect of FES on walking speed over time was found in comparison with the conventional treatment (P=.097). At none of the follow-up assessments, where the use of FES in the intervention group was compared with the use of an AFO in the control group, did post hoc testing result in a statistically significant difference relative to baseline. To examine the relation between both measurement techniques used to obtain comfortable walking speed, correlation coefficients were calculated. Both the 6MWT and the 10-m walkway were performed during baseline, week 12, and week 26. The correlation coefficients were around .90 for all 3 assessments, indicating a strong relation. Discussion The primary aim of this study was to determine the effect of using an implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulator on comfortable walking speed in comparison with the usual treatment in stroke survivors with a drop foot. Walking speed was measured in 2 different ways: by measuring average speed during a 6MWT and by measuring speed on a 10-m walkway. The results of the present study show that FES results in a significant improvement in walking speed measured with the 6MWT when FES is used for a period of about 6 months as a treatment for drop foot in chronic stroke survivors. Furthermore, comfortable walking speed measured on a 10-m walkway also increases significantly in the intervention group with regard to the control group during the trial when all follow-up assessments are taken into the analysis. Walking speed was measured in 2 different ways. Some differences might have been expected. The patient may feel greater pressure to perform well during the 10-m walkway, whereas the longer duration of the 6MWT might reflect the more natural cadence and velocity. Another possible source of difference might be the longer duration of the 6MWT, which might induce a fatigue effect. However, both measurements gave very similar results; no systematic differences were found. In the systematic review of Kottink et al,5 in which the effect of FES on walking speed in stroke survivors with a drop foot was evaluated, most of the included studies did not compare FES with the conventional orthotic treatment, but made a comparison between the conditions with and without FES. We intended to perform a more pragmatic trial. The present study is only the second RCT done on drop foot stimulation and the first RCT that examined the effect of an implantable drop foot stimulator. All subjects included were stroke survivors that were in a chronic phase, so spontaneous recovery was not expected to be a confounder in the present study. This is confirmed by obvious lack of changes in the walking speed in the control group over time. The improvements measured in the intervention group can therefore be completely attributed to the FES treatment. Another characteristic of our patient group was that they all had a relatively good walking function at the start of the trial, which is a result of our strict predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Richards et al19 described that to be independent in the community, a speed of .80±.18m/s is required. When looking at the walking speeds measured at baseline, one can conclude that all subjects in the trial satisfied this criterion. Most studies that examined the effect of peroneal nerve stimulation included subjects with a more impaired walking function. The control and intervention groups in the study by Burridge et al7 walked with a speed of .48 and .64m/s, respectively, at baseline. Patients included in the study by Bogataj et al,20 consisting of acute, subacute, and chronic stroke survivors, showed a mean walking speed of .19 and .23m/s for FES and control groups, respectively. In the literature, Wieler et al21 described that FES systems were of most benefit to subjects who walked very slowly. They explained that the smaller improvements among less impaired walkers were due to the fact they already had good control over many muscle groups. Consistent with this hypothesis, Ladouceur and Barbeau22 reported a negative correlation between initial walking speed and the effect of FES. Thus, the inclusion of more severely impaired patients may be associated with a larger treatment effect. Although implantable stimulators have clear advantages with respect to the accuracy of stimulation and user comfort, it is also obvious that surgery is required and overall costs are considerably higher. Thus, candidates for the implantable system should first be given a trial period with a surface peroneal nerve stimulator to assess and appreciate the potential benefits of using electric stimulation. When these users then encounter specific problems that might be amenable to implantable systems such as poor electrode reliability, painful sensation, and difficulty with donning and doffing the system, implantation should be considered. A slight deterioration in walking speed measured on a 10-m walkway was seen in the intervention group at the first follow-up. This can be explained by the anticipated inactive period and deconditioning after the implantation procedure. As the deterioration was observed with and without FES use, this explanation appears plausible. At the last follow-up assessment the intervention group continued to show improvements in walking speed, which suggests that a plateau has not been reached. Study Limitations A limitation of this study is the small sample size. This is reflected in the finding that FES resulted in a significant improvement of comfortable walking speed measured on a 10-m walkway when all assessments were included in the linear mixed model (P=.038), but only a trend toward significance when baseline was compared with the last follow-up assessment (P=.097). The more data are included in the linear mixed model, the higher the power. Reaching sufficient power is often reported as a problem in studies performed in a rehabilitation setting. Clinical Relevance An interesting aspect to discuss is the clinical relevance of the results found in the present study. Clinicians can use this information to determine the effectiveness of the FES treatment. Perry et al11 reported that a difference of .20m/s in walking speed with and without AFO was defined as clinically relevant. From figure 4 it can be seen that at the final follow-up assessment the control group shows a difference of .07m/s in walking speed measured on a 10-m walkway between the walking conditions with and without conventional walking aid. A difference of .21m/s is found in the intervention group when walking with FES was compared with walking without FES, which is clinically relevant in accordance with Perry. Because the 6MWT was only performed while using a walking aid in both groups, it was not possible to test if these walking speed results were clinically relevant in accordance to Perry. However, another definition of clinical relevance was given by Burridge,7 who considered a percentage change of 10% in walking speed to be functionally relevant. When looking at the walking speeds converted from the 6MWT, the intervention and control groups show an improvement of 23% and 3%, respectively. Thus, according to Burridge,7 the results found in the intervention group are highly clinically relevant. When the comfortable walking speed results measured on a 10-m walkway are taken into consideration, an improvement of exactly 10% is found in the intervention group when using the FES system (baseline, .80m/s; week 26, .88m/s). The control group did not show a change in walking speed during the trial when using their walking device. During both baseline and the last follow-up assessment walking speed was .74m/s. Some studies in the literature reported the same amount of improvement in walking speed measured on a 10-m walkway as was found in the present study. Waters et al,8 who also studied the effect of an implantable stimulator in chronic stroke survivors, found a difference of .24m/s in free cadence walking speed when walking with FES after surgery compared to walking without an orthosis before surgery. However, no control group was included in their study. The intervention group in the study performed by Bogataj20 showed an increase of .22m/s in walking speed when FES was compared with walking without FES, whereas the control group improved .03m/s. Our hypothesis that the intervention group would show an improvement in walking speed that is clinically relevant is confirmed by the present study results. The secondary aim of the present study was to measure physical activity by using the activPAL professional. Physical activity significantly decreases in the intervention group, as indicated by the decrease of time spent on stepping and more time spent on sitting/lying. This finding is remarkable as one would expect an increase of time spent on stepping, induced by the greater walking speed enabling people to walk greater distances. Recently, Stein et al23 found that with surface stimulation the number of steps per day, as reflected in the number of delivered pulse trains, increased significantly over time. However, a direct comparison with the present study is hampered, because we investigated physical activity of subjects while using their conventional walking aid at baseline in comparison with physical activity while using the implantable device at week 26. Because all subjects in our study were in the chronic phase of stroke, they were all trained well in walking with their conventional walking aid. Physical activity at baseline is therefore expected to be at a higher level in the present study, making it more difficult to find differences in due time. Our results do suggest that patients do not change their averaged walking distance using FES whereas the increase in walking speed allows them to spend even less time in walking. Despite the decrease measured in daily activity, the overall results suggest that an implanted peroneal nerve stimulator is an effective treatment option for a select group of chronic stroke survivors with foot drop. Conclusions FES resulted in a significant and clinically relevant increase in walking speed. The intervention group showed an improvement of 23% in walking speed in comparison with a 3% improvement in the control group when walking speed was measured by means of the 6MWT. Comfortable walking speed, measured on a 10-m walkway, was also significantly improved in favor of FES. In contrast to our expectations, the results found by the activPAL professional do suggest that the average walking distance did not change by applying the stimulator. In conclusion the results suggest that the implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulator is a clinically relevant treatment option in a select group of chronic stroke survivors. Future studies might investigate the generalizability of the results to other stroke survivors and the relevance of the stimulation system in other patient categories with upper motoneuron drop foot problems. Suppliers Acknowledgments We thank Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn, PhD, for her help with performing the statistical analysis. No financial arrangements were made between FineTech Medical Ltd and Roessingh Research and Development regarding this study except for a discount on the purchase of devices. FineTech Medical Ltd was not involved in the performance or the reporting of the present study. The implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulator used in the present study is currently known as the STIMuSTEP. References 1. 1Burridge JH, Wood DE, Taylor PN, McLellan DL. Indices to describe different muscle activation patterns, identified during treadmill walking, in people with spastic drop-foot. Med Eng Phys. 2001;23:427–434. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (157 KB)
|
CrossRef
2. 2Taylor PN, Burridge JH, Dunkerley AL, et al. Clinical use of the Odstock dropped foot stimulator: its effect on the speed and effort of walking. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:1577–1583. Abstract |
Full-Text PDF (1147 KB)
|
CrossRef
3. 3Taylor PN, Burridge JH, Dunkerley AL, et al. Patients’ perceptions of the Odstock Dropped Foot Stimulator (ODFS). Clin Rehabil. 1999;13:439–446. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
4. 4Taylor P, Burridge J, Dunkerley A, et al. Clinical audit of 5 years provision of the Odstock dropped foot stimulator. Artif Organs. 1999;23:440–442.
CrossRef
5. 5Kottink AI, Oostendorp LJ, Buurke JH, Nene AV, Hermens HJ, IJzerman MJ. The orthotic effect of functional electrical stimulation on the improvement of walking in stroke patients with a dropped foot: a systematic review. Artif Organs. 2004;28:577–586.
CrossRef
6. 6Robbins SM, Houghton PE, Woodbury MG, Brown JL. The therapeutic effect of functional and transcutaneous electric stimulation on improving gait speed in stroke patients: a meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:853–859. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (149 KB)
|
CrossRef
7. 7Burridge JH, Taylor PN, Hagan SA, Wood DE, Swain ID. The effects of common peroneal stimulation on the effort and speed of walking: a randomized controlled trial with chronic hemiplegic patients. Clin Rehabil. 1997;11:201–210. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
8. 8Waters RL, McNeal D, Perry J. Experimental correction of footdrop by electrical stimulation of the peroneal nerve. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975;57:1047–1054. MEDLINE 9. 9Strojnik P, Acimovic R, Vavken E, Simic V, Stanic U. Treatment of drop foot using an implantable peroneal underknee stimulator. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1987;19:37–43. MEDLINE 10. 10van der Aa HE, Bultstra G, Verloop AJ, et al. Application of a dual channel peroneal nerve stimulator in a patient with a “central” drop foot. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2002;79:105–107. MEDLINE 11. 11Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke. 1995;26:982–989. MEDLINE 12. 12Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–694. MEDLINE 13. 13Guyatt GH, Sullivan MJ, Thompson PJ, et al. The 6-minute walk: a new measure of exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. Can Med Assoc J. 1985;132:919–923. MEDLINE 14. 14Grant M, Ryan C, Tigbe W, Granat M. Validation of the activPAL™ activity monitor in measuring free-living physical activity. Biomechanics of the lower limb in health, disease and rehabilitation. Presented to: Salford’s 3rd International Conference; 2005 Sept 5-7; Salford (UK). p 196-7. 15. 15Holsheimer J, Bultstra G, Verloop AJ, van der Aa HE, Hermens HJ. Implantable dual channel peroneal nerve stimulator. Presented to: Ljubljana FES Conference; 1993 Aug; Ljubljana (Slovenia). p 42-4. 16. 16Butland RJ, Pang J, Gross ER, Woodcock AA, Geddes DM. Two-, six-, and 12-minute walking tests in respiratory disease. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982;284:1607–1608. MEDLINE 17. 17Richards CL, Olney SJ. Hemiparetic gait following stroke (Part II: Recovery and physical therapy). Gait Posture. 1996;4:149–162. Abstract |
Full-Text PDF (3201 KB)
|
CrossRef
18. 18Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford Univ Pr; 1992;. 19. 19Richards CL, Malouin F, Dean C. Gait in stroke: assessment and rehabilitation. Clin Geriatr Med. 1999;15:833–855. MEDLINE 20. 20Bogataj U, Gros N, Kljajic M, Acimovic R, Malezic M. The rehabilitation of gait in patients with hemiplegia: a comparison between conventional therapy and multichannel functional electrical stimulation therapy. Phys Ther. 1995;75:490–502. MEDLINE 21. 21Wieler M, Stein RB, Ladouceur M, et al. Multicenter evaluation of electrical stimulation systems for walking. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:495–500. Abstract |
Full-Text PDF (806 KB)
|
CrossRef
22. 22Ladouceur M, Barbeau H. Functional electrical stimulation-assisted walking for persons with incomplete spinal injuries: longitudinal changes in maximal overground walking speed. Scand J Rehabil Med. 2000;32:28–36. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
23. 23Stein RB, Chong S, Everaert DG, et al. A multicenter trial of a footdrop stimulator controlled by a tilt sensor. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006;20:371–379. MEDLINE a Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede, The Netherlands b Institute for Biomedical Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands c Roessingh Rehabilitation Center, Enschede, The Netherlands d Department Neurosurgery Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands e Twente Institute for Neuromodulation, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands f Biomedical Signals & Systems, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.  Reprint requests to Anke I. Kottink, MSc, Roessingh Research and Development, PO Box 310, 7500 AH, Enschede, The Netherlands
Supported by the European Eureka program, the Department of Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs in The Hague, The Netherlands; the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport in The Hague, The Netherlands; and St Hubertus Foundation, The Netherlands. No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are associated. PII: S0003-9993(07)00328-0 doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.05.002 © 2007 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | |
|
FULL TEXT
00328-0/journalimage?img=PIIS0003999307003280.gr1.lrg.gif&fig=fig1&kwhquery=&issn=0003-9993&ishighres=false&allhighres=false&free=yes','journalimage');)
00328-0/journalimage?img=PIIS0003999307003280.gr2.lrg.gif&fig=fig2&kwhquery=&issn=0003-9993&ishighres=false&allhighres=false&free=yes','journalimage');)
00328-0/journalimage?img=PIIS0003999307003280.gr3.lrg.gif&fig=fig3&kwhquery=&issn=0003-9993&ishighres=false&allhighres=false&free=yes','journalimage');)
00328-0/journalimage?img=PIIS0003999307003280.gr4.lrg.gif&fig=fig4&kwhquery=&issn=0003-9993&ishighres=false&allhighres=false&free=yes','journalimage');)