Physical Therapists' Use of Functional Electrical Stimulation for Clients With Stroke: Frequency, Barriers, and Facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Best practice guidelines for stroke rehabilitation recommend functional electrical stimulation (FES) to improve gait and upper extremity function. Whether these guidelines have been implemented in practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were: (1) to determine the frequency with which physical therapists use FES to address common therapeutic goals poststroke and (2) to identify the barriers to and facilitators of FES use. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional, survey study. METHODS: A valid and reliable online survey was sent to Canadian physical therapists. Questions about demographic characteristics, FES use, knowledge of FES literature, and barriers and facilitators were posed. Closed-ended questions were analyzed with descriptive statistics and index scoring to produce summary scores. Pearson or point-biserial correlation coefficients correlated FES use with demographic variables. Open-ended questions about barriers and facilitators were analyzed by 3 researchers using a conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-eight physical therapists responded. Use of FES for clients with stroke was low for all therapeutic goals queried (improve walking, arm function, muscle strength and endurance, and sensation; prevent shoulder subluxation; and decrease spasticity). However, 52.6% of the respondents stated that they would like to increase their use of FES. More than 40% of the respondents were unsure of the strength of the evidence supporting FES for stroke care. Physical therapists with postgraduate FES training were more likely to use FES (r=.471, P<.001). A lack of access to resources, such as time, equipment, and training, was the most frequently cited barrier to FES use. LIMITATIONS: As an observational study, cause-and-effect relationships for FES use cannot be identified. CONCLUSIONS: Functional electrical stimulation is not widely used by physical therapists in stroke rehabilitation. Improving access to resources-in particular, continuing education-may facilitate the implementation of FES into clinical practice.

Long-term therapeutic and orthotic effects of a foot drop stimulator on walking performance in progressive and nonprogressive neurological disorders.

BACKGROUND: Stimulators applying functional electrical stimulation (FES) to the common peroneal nerve improve walking with a foot drop, which occurs in several disorders. OBJECTIVE: To compare the orthotic and therapeutic effects of a foot drop stimulator on walking performance of subjects with chronic nonprogressive (eg, stroke) and progressive (eg, multiple sclerosis) disorders. METHODS: Subjects with nonprogressive (41) and progressive (32) conditions used a foot drop stimulator for 3 to 12 months while walking in the community. Walking speed was measured with a 10-m test and a 4-minute figure-8 test; physiological cost index (PCI) and device usage were also measured. The subjects were tested with FES on and off (orthotic effect) before and after (therapeutic effect) stimulator use. RESULTS: After 3 months of FES use, the nonprogressive and progressive groups had a similar, significant orthotic effect (5.0% and 5.7%, respectively, P < .003; percentage change in mean values) and therapeutic effect with FES off (17.8% and 9.1%, respectively, P < .005) on figure-8 walking speed. Overall, PCI showed a decreasing trend (P = .031). The therapeutic effect on figure-8 speed diverged later between both groups to 28.0% (P < .001) and 7.9% at 11 months. The combined therapeutic plus orthotic effect on figure-8 speed at 11 months was, respectively, 37.8% (P < .001) and 13.1% (P = .012); PCI decreased 18.2% (P = .038) and 6.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with progressive and nonprogressive disorders had an orthotic benefit from FES up to 11 months. The therapeutic effect increased for 11 months in nonprogressive disorders but only for 3 months in progressive disorders. The combined effect remained significant and clinically relevant.

A systematic review of the efficacy of gait rehabilitation strategies for spinal cord injury.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for the efficacy of different rehabilitation strategies on functional ambulation following spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: A keyword literature search of original articles was used to identify published literature evaluating the effectiveness of any treatment or therapy on functional ambulation in people with SCI. The rigor and quality of each study were scored on standardized scales by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: The search yielded 160 articles, of which 119 were excluded for not meeting our inclusion criteria. The remaining 41 articles covered various strategies for improving gait: bodyweight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) (n=12), functional electrical stimulation (FES) (n=7), braces/orthoses (n=10), or a combination of these (n=12). There is strong evidence from randomized controlled trials that functional ambulation outcomes following body-weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) are comparable to an equivalent intensity of overground gait training in sub-acute SCI. In chronic SCI, evidence from pre-test/post-test studies shows that BWSTT may be effective in improving functional ambulation. Pre-test/post-test or post-test only studies provide evidence that FES may augment functional ambulation in sub-acute/chronic SCI while braces may afford particular benefits to people with complete SCI to stand up and ambulate with assistive devices. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation strategies that facilitate repeated practice of gait offer the greatest benefits to functional ambulation in sub-acute or chronic SCI. Supportive devices may augment functional ambulation particularly in people with incomplete SCI.

A multicenter trial of a footdrop stimulator controlled by a tilt sensor.

OBJECTIVES: To test the efficacy and acceptance of a footdrop stimulator controlled by a tilt sensor. METHODS: A nonrandomized, test-retest study of 26 subjects with footdrop of more than 1 year's duration, resulting from various central nervous system disorders, was performed in 4 centers for at least 3 months. Speed of walking in a straight line, speed around a figure of 8, and physiological cost index (PCI) were measured with and without the device. Hours/day and steps/day using the device were recorded. RESULTS: All but 2 subjects used the tilt sensor at home, rather than a foot switch. Walking speed increased by 15% after 3 months (n = 26; P < 0.01), 32% after 6 months (n = 16; P < 0.01), and 47% after 12 months (n = 8; P < 0.05), while PCI decreased. The number of steps taken per day of use increased significantly over time, and increased speed was directly correlated with usage. Walking speed also increased with the stimulator off, but to a lesser extent, indicating a training effect. Subject feedback from a questionnaire indicated satisfaction with the stimulator. CONCLUSIONS: Both efficacy and acceptance of the stimulator were good in a population of subjects with chronic footdrop.

Effects of a simple functional electric system and/or a hinged ankle-foot orthosis on walking in persons with incomplete spinal cord injury.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of functional electric stimulation (FES) with that of a hinged ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) for assisting foot clearance, gait speed, and endurance and to determine whether there is added benefit in using FES in conjunction with the hinged AFO in persons with incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI). DESIGN: Within-subject comparison of walking under 4 conditions: AFO, FES, AFO and FES, and no orthosis. A plastic hinged AFO was used for all AFO conditions. SETTING: Tertiary rehabilitation center. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen subjects with incomplete SCI. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The self-selected gait speed, 6-minute walk distance, and foot clearance values were compared between conditions. RESULTS: Gait speed increased with FES ( P <.05) and with the AFO ( P =.06). Six-minute walk distance also increased with the AFO ( P <.05). No difference was found between the 2 forms of orthoses in either gait speed or endurance. The greatest increase in gait speed and endurance from the no-orthosis condition occurred with the combined AFO and FES condition. Foot clearance improved with FES but not with AFO. Subjects whose gait speed increased with FES had weaker hip flexors, knee flexors, and ankle dorsiflexors than those who did not benefit from FES. CONCLUSIONS: Both FES and the hinged AFO promote walking and FES is only superior to the AFO in increasing foot-clearance values. The hinged AFO and FES together may offer advantages over either device alone.