Long-Term Follow-up to a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Peroneal Nerve Functional Electrical Stimulation to an Ankle Foot Orthosis for Patients With Chronic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation (FES) as an effective alternative to ankle foot orthoses (AFO) for treatment of foot drop poststroke, but few long-term, randomized controlled comparisons exist. OBJECTIVE: Compare changes in gait quality and function between FES and AFOs in individuals with foot drop poststroke over a 12-month period. METHODS: Follow-up analysis of an unblinded randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01087957) conducted at 30 rehabilitation centers comparing FES to AFOs over 6 months. Subjects continued to wear their randomized device for another 6 months to final 12-month assessments. Subjects used study devices for all home and community ambulation. Multiply imputed intention-to-treat analyses were utilized; primary endpoints were tested for noninferiority and secondary endpoints for superiority. Primary endpoints: 10 Meter Walk Test (10MWT) and device-related serious adverse event rate. Secondary endpoints: 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), GaitRite Functional Ambulation Profile, and Modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile (mEFAP). RESULTS: A total of 495 subjects were randomized, and 384 completed the 12-month follow-up. FES proved noninferior to AFOs for all primary endpoints. Both FES and AFO groups showed statistically and clinically significant improvement for 10MWT compared with initial measurement. No statistically significant between-group differences were found for primary or secondary endpoints. The FES group demonstrated statistically significant improvements for 6MWT and mEFAP Stair-time subscore. CONCLUSIONS: At 12 months, both FES and AFOs continue to demonstrate equivalent gains in gait speed. Results suggest that long-term FES use may lead to additional improvements in walking endurance and functional ambulation; further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Hemiplegic shoulder pain: an approach to diagnosis and management.

Stroke is a significant source of mortality and long-term disability in the United States. Of persons who survive a stroke, approximately 50% will have hemiplegia, half of whom will live with a nonfunctional arm. Hemiplegic shoulder pain (HSP), which occurs in most patients with hemiplegia, reduces participation and worsens outcomes in rehabilitation. Management of HSP is challenging because its causes are multifactorial and there is limited, conflicting, or nonspecific evidence in support of most treatments. This article develops an effective approach for diagnosis and treatment using the best available evidence to aid practitioners in obtaining optimal results.

The effects of peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation versus ankle-foot orthosis in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation (FES) as an effective alternative to ankle-foot orthoses (AFO) for treatment of foot drop poststroke, but few randomized controlled comparisons exist. OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in gait and quality of life (QoL) between FES and an AFO in individuals with foot drop poststroke. METHODS: In a multicenter randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01087957) with unblinded outcome assessments, 495 Medicare-eligible individuals at least 6 months poststroke wore FES or an AFO for 6 months. Primary endpoints: 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), a composite of the Mobility, Activities of Daily Living/Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, and Social Participation subscores on the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), and device-related serious adverse event rate. Secondary endpoints: 6-Minute Walk Test, GaitRite Functional Ambulation Profile (FAP), Modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile (mEFAP), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go, individual SIS domains, and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life measures. Multiply imputed intention-to-treat analyses were used with primary endpoints tested for noninferiority and secondary endpoints tested for superiority. RESULTS: A total of 399 subjects completed the study. FES proved noninferior to the AFO for all primary endpoints. Both the FES and AFO groups improved significantly on the 10MWT. Within the FES group, significant improvements were found for SIS composite score, total mFEAP score, individual Floor and Obstacle course time scores of the mEFAP, FAP, and BBS, but again, no between-group differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Use of FES is equivalent to the AFO. Further studies should examine whether FES enables better performance in tasks involving functional mobility, activities of daily living, and balance.