Dual-channel functional electrical stimulation improvements in speed-based gait classifications

Shmuel Springer, Yocheved Laufer, Meni Becher, Jean-Jacques Vatine, Shmuel Springer, Yocheved Laufer, Meni Becher, Jean-Jacques Vatine

Abstract

Background: Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is becoming an accepted treatment method for enhancing gait performance in patients who present with gait difficulties resulting from hemiparesis. The purpose of this study was to test whether individuals with hemiparesis who have varied gait speeds, which place them in different functional categories, benefit to the same extent from the application of FES.

Methods: Thirty-six subjects with chronic hemiparesis demonstrating foot-drop and deficits in knee and/or hip control were fitted with a dual-channel FES system activating the dorsiflexors and hamstring muscles. Gait was assessed during a 2-minute walk test with and without stimulation. A second assessment was conducted after 6 weeks of daily use. Analysis was performed with the subjects stratified into three functional ambulation classes according to their initial gait categories.

Results: The dual-channel FES improved the gait velocity of all three subgroups. No minimal gait velocity was required in order to gain benefits from FES. For example, subjects with limited household ambulation capabilities improved their gait speed by 63.3% (from 0.30 ± 0.09 m/sec to 0.49 ± 0.20 m/sec; P < 0.01), while subjects with functional community ambulation capabilities improved their gait speed by 25.5% (from 0.90 ± 0.11 m/sec to 1.13 ± 0.22 m/sec; P < 0.01).

Conclusion: Dual-channel FES positively affects gait velocity in patients with chronic hemiparesis, regardless of their initial gait velocity. Furthermore, gait velocity gains may be large enough to change an individual's ambulation status to a higher functional category.

Keywords: ambulation; functional electrical stimulation; gait velocity; hemiparesis.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The Ness L300Plus system.
Graph 1
Graph 1
Effect of functional electrical stimulation on gait velocity in the three subgroups of ambulation categories.

References

    1. Bonita R, Solomon N, Broad JB. Prevalence of stroke and stroke-related disability. Estimates from the Auckland stroke studies. Stroke. 1997;28(10):1898–1902.
    1. Lord SE, McPherson K, McNaughton HK, Rochester L, Weatherall M. Community ambulation after stroke: how important and obtainable is it and what measures appear predictive? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(2):234–239.
    1. Bowden MG, Embry AE, Gregory CM. Physical therapy adjuvants to promote optimization of walking recovery after stroke. Stroke Res Treat. 2011;2011:601416.
    1. Daly JJ, Roenigk K, Holcomb J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of functional neuromuscular stimulation in chronic stroke subjects. Stroke. 2006;37(1):172–178.
    1. Bohannon RW, Walsh S. Nature, reliability, and predictive value of muscle performance measures in patients with hemiparesis following stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73(8):721–725.
    1. Tyson SF, DeSouza LH. Reliability and validity of functional balance tests post stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18(8):916–923.
    1. Fulk GD, Echternach JL, Nof L, O’Sullivan S. Clinometric properties of the six-minute walk test in individuals undergoing rehabilitation poststroke. Physiother Theory Pract. 2008;24(3):195–204.
    1. Cunha IT, Lim PA, Henson H, Monga T, Qureshy H, Protas EJ. Performance-based gait tests for acute stroke patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81(11):848–856.
    1. Dickstein R. Rehabilitation of gait speed after stroke: a critical review of intervention approaches. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(6):649–660.
    1. Schmid A, Duncan PW, Studenski S, et al. Improvements in speed-based gait classifications are meaningful. Stroke. 2007;38(7):2096–2100.
    1. Patterson SL, Forrester LW, Rodgers MM, et al. Determinants of walking function after stroke: differences by deficit severity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(1):115–119.
    1. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke. 1995;26(6):982–989.
    1. Laufer Y, Hausdorff JM, Ring H. Effects of a foot drop neuroprosthesis on functional abilities, social participation, and gait velocity. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(1):14–20.
    1. Taylor 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(12):1577–1583.
    1. Thrasher TA, Popovic MR. Functional electrical stimulation of walking: function, exercise and rehabilitation. Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2008;51(6):452–460.
    1. Peckham PH, Knutson JS. Functional electrical stimulation for neuromuscular applications. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2005;7:327–360.
    1. Kim JH, Chung Y, Kim Y, Hwang S. Functional electrical stimulation applied to gluteus medius and tibialis anterior corresponding gait cycle for stroke. Gait Posture. 2012;36(1):65–67.
    1. Embrey DG, Holtz SL, Alon G, Brandsma BA, McCoy SW. Functional electrical stimulation to dorsiflexors and plantar flexors during gait to improve walking in adults with chronic hemiplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(5):687–696.
    1. Springer S, Vatine JJ, Lipson R, Wolf A, Laufer Y. Effects of dual-channel functional electrical stimulation on gait performance in patients with hemiparesis. Scientific World Journal. 2012;2012:530906.
    1. Springer S, Vatine JJ, Wolf A, Laufer Y. The effects of dual-channel functional electrical stimulation on stance phase sagittal kinematics in patients with hemiparesis. J Electromyogr Kinesiol
    1. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–198.
    1. Kosak M, Smith T. Comparison of the 2-, 6-, and 12-minute walk tests in patients with stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(1):103–107.
    1. Flansbjer UB, Holmback AM, Downham D, Patten C, Lexell J. Reliability of gait performance tests in men and women with hemiparesis after stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37(2):75–82.
    1. Weinrich M, Good DC, Reding M, et al. Timing, intensity, and duration of rehabilitation for hip fracture and stroke: report of a workshop at the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2004;18(1):12–28.
    1. Bethoux F, Calmels P, Gautheron V. Changes in the quality of life of hemiplegic stroke patients with time: a preliminary report. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;78(1):19–23.
    1. Perera S, Mody SH, Woodman RC, Studenski SA. Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(5):743–749.
    1. Palombaro KM, Craik RL, Mangione KK, Tomlinson JD. Determining meaningful changes in gait speed after hip fracture. Phys Ther. 2006;86(6):809–816.
    1. Laufer Y, Ring H, Sprecher E, Hausdorff JM. Gait in individuals with chronic hemiparesis: one-year follow-up of the effects of a neuroprosthesis that ameliorates foot drop. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2009;33(2):104–110.
    1. Burridge 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(3):201–210.
    1. Granat MH, Maxwell DJ, Ferguson AC, Lees KR, Barbenel JC. Peroneal stimulator; evaluation for the correction of spastic drop foot in hemiplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(1):19–24.
    1. Kottink AI, Hermens HJ, Nene AV, Tenniglo MJ, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Ijzerman MJ. Therapeutic effect of an implantable peroneal nerve stimulator in subjects with chronic stroke and footdrop: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2008;88(4):437–448.
    1. Taylor P, Burridge J, Dunkerley A, et al. Clinical audit of 5 years provision of the Odstock dropped foot stimulator. Artif Organs. 1999;23(5):440–442.
    1. Hausdorff JM, Ring H. Effects of a new radio frequency-controlled neuroprosthesis on gait symmetry and rhythmicity in patients with chronic hemiparesis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;87(1):4–13.
    1. Chen G, Patten C, Kothari DH, Zajac FE. Gait differences between individuals with post-stroke hemiparesis and non-disabled controls at matched speeds. Gait Posture. 2005;22(1):51–56.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere