Timing of nimodipine therapy for the treatment of vocal fold paralysis.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To retrospectively determine optimal timing for initiation of nimodipine within a cohort of patients with acute vocal fold paralysis (VFP). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective patient review. METHODS: Subjects were divided into three groups: initiation within 15 days postinjury (n = 19), between 15 and 30 days postinjury (n = 23), or greater than 30 days postinjury (n = 11). RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (53 paralyzed vocal folds [VFs]) met entrance criteria and were offered and started off-label nimodipine treatment. Thirty-six of 53 VFs recovered purposeful motion (67.9%). There was no significant difference in the rate of VF recovery among patients who began nimodipine within 15 days (68.4%), patients who started nimodipine between 15 and 30 days (73.9%) of nerve injury (P = .1405), and patients who initiated nimodipine after 30 days postinjury (54.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Nimodipine treatment for acute VFP yielded equal VF motion recovery rates regardless of when the medication was initiated. Time to recovery of motion was not different between groups studied.

Prospective investigation of nimodipine for acute vocal fold paralysis.

INTRODUCTION: Nimodipine has been shown to be beneficial for recovery from acute vocal fold paralysis (AVFP) in an animal model. METHODS: prospective, open-label trial of patients with AVFP was performed using nimodipine. Consecutive patients were evaluated and offered nimodipine therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were considered for treatment with nimodipine. Thirteen did not qualify for inclusion, 5 were lost to follow-up, and 7 had side effects requiring cessation of treatment. Thus 28 patients (30 paralyzed vocal folds) were analyzed. Eighteen of the paralyzed vocal folds experienced recovery of purposeful motion (60%). Historical controls and laryngeal electromyography meta-analysis suggest no more than a 20% recovery rate from AVFP. CONCLUSIONS: This open label study using nimodipine for treatment of AVFP demonstrates tripling of the recovery rate of vocal fold motion compared with historical controls. Further study in a randomized, controlled manner is warranted.

Effect of a foot-drop stimulator and ankle-foot orthosis on walking performance after stroke: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of functional electrical stimulation in the management of foot drop after stroke. OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in walking performance with the WalkAide (WA) foot-drop stimulator and a conventional ankle-foot orthosis (AFO). METHODS: Individuals with stroke within the previous 12 months and residual foot drop were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized controlled, crossover trial. Subjects were assigned to 1 of 3 parallel arms for 12 weeks (6 weeks/device): arm 1 (WA-AFO), n = 38; arm 2 (AFO-WA), n = 31; arm 3 (AFO-AFO), n = 24. Primary outcomes were walking speed and Physiological Cost Index for the Figure-of-8 walking test. Secondary measures included 10-m walking speed and perceived safety during this test, general mobility, and device preference for arms 1 and 2 for continued use. Walking tests were performed with (On) and without a device (Off) at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Both WA and AFO had significant orthotic (On-Off difference), therapeutic (change over time when Off), and combined (change over time On vs baseline Off) effects on walking speed. An AFO also had a significant orthotic effect on Physiological Cost Index. The WA had a higher, but not significantly different therapeutic effect on speed than an AFO, whereas an AFO had a greater orthotic effect than the WA (significant at 12 weeks). Combined effects on speed after 6 weeks did not differ between devices. Users felt as safe with the WA as with an AFO, but significantly more users preferred the WA. CONCLUSIONS: Both devices produce equivalent functional gains.

Cyclic functional electrical stimulation does not enhance gains in hand grasp function when used as an adjunct to onabotulinumtoxinA and task practice therapy: a single-blind, randomized controlled pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether onabotulinumtoxinA injections and task practice training with or without functional electrical stimulation (FES) improve upper limb motor function in chronic spastic hemiparesis. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient spasticity clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=23) had chronic spastic hemiparesis with moderate-severe hand impairment based on Chedoke-McMaster Assessment greater than or equal to 2. INTERVENTIONS: OnabotulinumtoxinA injections followed by 12 weeks of postinjection task practice. Participants randomly assigned to FES group were also fitted with an orthosis that provided FES. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Motor Activity Log (MAL)-Observation was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and MAL-Self-Report. RESULTS: For the entire cohort, MAL-Observation mean item scores improved significantly from baseline to week 6 (P=.005) but did not remain significant at week 12. MAL-Self-Report mean item scores improved significantly (P=.009) from baseline to week 6 and remained significantly higher (P=.014) at week 12. ARAT total scores also improved significantly from baseline to week 6 (P=.018) and were sustained at week 12 (P=.032). However, there were no significant differences between the FES and no-FES groups for any outcome variable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation strategies that combine onabotulinumtoxinA injections and task practice therapy are feasible and effective in improving upper-limb motor function and reducing spasticity in patients with chronic spastic hemiparesis. However, the cyclic FES protocol used in this study did not increase gains achieved with the combination of onabotulinumtoxinA and task practice alone.