Exploring the rationale for prescribing ankle-foot orthoses and supramalleolar orthoses in children with cerebral palsy: A narrative synthesis of rationale statements.

BACKGROUND: To help improve outcomes for children with cerebral palsy (CP), ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) and supramalleolar orthoses (SMOs) are prescribed. However, it is not clear why one intervention is prescribed over the other. OBJECTIVES: To explore the rationale for prescribing AFOs and SMOs in children with CP and its link to the choice of outcome measure used. STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. METHODS: Six databases were searched (eg, Medline) and data extracted from articles that met the inclusion criteria. Data describing the participant demographics, type of orthosis, and outcome measures used were summarized to provide context for the different rationale for orthotic prescription that were thematically analyzed. DISCUSSION: Forty-seven articles were included. Participants were aged 9 ± 2 years, 59% were male, 79% had diplegia, and 38% were classified as Gross Motor Function Classification System level I. All studies included a rationale for prescribing AFOs that, in most cases, reflected the outcome measures used. These rationale statements were synthesized into 5 specific themes (e.g., reduced energy expenditure and metabolic costs). By comparison, 5 of these studies described the rationale for providing SMOs, and of those that did, most of the rationale statements were nonspecific. CONCLUSIONS: A large and contemporary body of literature describes the rationale for prescribing AFOs for children with CP. There are opportunities for future research that clearly articulates the rationale for prescribing SMOs for children living with CP and to focus the rational for orthotic intervention on the real-world challenges that are most important to children living with CP, such as the ability to participate among peers.

Effect of neonatal seizure burden and etiology on the long-term outcome: data from a randomized, controlled trial.

Background: Neonatal seizures are common, but the impact of neonatal seizures on long-term neurologic outcome remains unclear. We addressed this question by analyzing data from an early-phase controlled trial of bumetanide to treat neonatal seizures. Methods: Neonatal seizure burden was calculated from continuous video-EEG data. Neurologic outcome was determined by standardized developmental tests and post-neonatal seizure recurrence. Results: Of 111 enrolled neonates, 43 were randomized to treatment or control groups. There were no differences in neurologic outcome between treatment and control groups. A subgroup analysis was performed for 84 neonates with acute perinatal brain injury (57 HIE, 18 stroke, 9 ICH), most of whom (70%) had neonatal seizures. There was a significant negative correlation between seizure burden and developmental scores (p<0.01). Associations between seizure burden and developmental scores were stronger in HIE and stroke groups compared with ICH (p<0.05). Conclusion: Bumetanide showed no long-term beneficial or adverse effects, as expected based on treatment duration versus duration of neonatal seizures. For neonates with perinatal brain injury, higher neonatal seizure burden correlated significantly with worse developmental outcome, particularly for ischemic versus hemorrhagic brain injury. These data highlight the need for further investigation of the long-term effects of both neonatal seizure severity and etiology.