Training and orthotic effects related to functional electrical stimulation of the peroneal nerve in stroke
Authors: Street, T., Swain, I. and Taylor, P.
Journal: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume: 49
Issue: 2
Pages: 113-119
ISSN: 1650-1977
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2181
Abstract:Objective: To examine the evidence for a training effect on the lower limb of functional electrical stimulation. Design: Cohort study. Patients: A total of 133 patients >6 months post-stroke. Methods: Training and orthotic effects were determined from walking speed over 10 m, associated minimal and substantial clinically important differences (i.e. >0.05 and >0.10 m/s), and Functional Ambulation Category (FAC), ranging from household walking to independent walking in the community. Results: An overall significant (p < 0.01) training effect was found that was not a clinically important difference (0.02 m/s); however, "community" FAC (≥ 0.8 m/s) and "most limited community walkers" FAC (0.4-0.58 m/s), but not "household walkers" (< 0.4 m/s), benefitted from a clinically important difference. A highly significant (p< 0.001), substantial clinically important orthotic effect (0.10 m/s) was found. In terms of overall improvement of one or more FACs, 23% achieved this due to a training effect, compared with 43% due to an orthotic effect. Conclusion: The findings suggest that functional electrical stimulation provides a training effect in those who are less impaired. Further work, which optimizes the use of the device for restoration of function, rather than as an orthotic device, will provide greater clarity on the effectiveness of functional electrical stimulation for eliciting a training effect.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/28368/
Source: Scopus
Training and orthotic effects related to functional electrical stimulation of the peroneal nerve in stroke.
Authors: Street, T., Swain, I. and Taylor, P.
Journal: J Rehabil Med
Volume: 49
Issue: 2
Pages: 113-119
eISSN: 1651-2081
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2181
Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence for a training effect on the lower limb of functional electrical stimulation. DESIGN: Cohort study. PATIENTS: A total of 133 patients >6 months post-stroke. METHODS: Training and orthotic effects were determined from walking speed over 10 m, associated minimal and substantial clinically important differences (i.e. >0.05 and >0.10 m/s), and Functional Ambulation Category (FAC), ranging from household walking to independent walking in the community. RESULTS: An overall significant (p < 0.01) training effect was found that was not a clinically important difference (0.02 m/s); however, "community" FAC (≥ 0.8 m/s) and "most limited community walkers" FAC (0.4-0.58 m/s), but not "household walkers" (< 0.4 m/s), benefitted from a clinically important difference. A highly significant (p< 0.001), substantial clinically important orthotic effect (0.10 m/s) was found. In terms of overall improvement of one or more FACs, 23% achieved this due to a training effect, compared with 43% due to an orthotic effect. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that functional electrical stimulation provides a training effect in those who are less impaired. Further work, which optimizes the use of the device for restoration of function, rather than as an orthotic device, will provide greater clarity on the effectiveness of functional electrical stimulation for eliciting a training effect.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/28368/
Source: PubMed
TRAINING AND ORTHOTIC EFFECTS RELATED TO FUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL STIMULATION OF THE PERONEAL NERVE IN STROKE*
Authors: Street, T., Swain, I. and Taylor, P.
Journal: JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
Volume: 49
Issue: 2
Pages: 113-119
eISSN: 1651-2081
ISSN: 1650-1977
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2181
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/28368/
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
Training and orthotic effects related to functional electrical stimulation of the peroneal nerve in stroke.
Authors: Street, T., Swain, I. and Taylor, P.
Journal: Journal of rehabilitation medicine
Volume: 49
Issue: 2
Pages: 113-119
eISSN: 1651-2081
ISSN: 1650-1977
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2181
Abstract:Objective
To examine the evidence for a training effect on the lower limb of functional electrical stimulation.Design
Cohort study.Patients
A total of 133 patients >6 months post-stroke.Methods
Training and orthotic effects were determined from walking speed over 10 m, associated minimal and substantial clinically important differences (i.e. >0.05 and >0.10 m/s), and Functional Ambulation Category (FAC), ranging from household walking to independent walking in the community.Results
An overall significant (p < 0.01) training effect was found that was not a clinically important difference (0.02 m/s); however, "community" FAC (≥ 0.8 m/s) and "most limited community walkers" FAC (0.4-0.58 m/s), but not "household walkers" (< 0.4 m/s), benefitted from a clinically important difference. A highly significant (p< 0.001), substantial clinically important orthotic effect (0.10 m/s) was found. In terms of overall improvement of one or more FACs, 23% achieved this due to a training effect, compared with 43% due to an orthotic effect.Conclusion
The findings suggest that functional electrical stimulation provides a training effect in those who are less impaired. Further work, which optimizes the use of the device for restoration of function, rather than as an orthotic device, will provide greater clarity on the effectiveness of functional electrical stimulation for eliciting a training effect.https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/28368/
Source: Europe PubMed Central
Training and orthotic effects related to functional electrical stimulation of the peroneal nerve in stroke.
Authors: Street, T., Swain, I.D. and Taylor, P.
Journal: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume: 49
Issue: 2
Pages: 113-119
ISSN: 1650-1977
Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence for a training effect on the lower limb of functional electrical stimulation. DESIGN: Cohort study. PATIENTS: A total of 133 patients >6 months post-stroke. METHODS: Training and orthotic effects were determined from walking speed over 10 m, associated minimal and substantial clinically important differences (i.e. >0.05 and >0.10 m/s), and Functional Ambulation Category (FAC), ranging from household walking to independent walking in the community. RESULTS: An overall significant (p < 0.01) training effect was found that was not a clinically important difference (0.02 m/s); however, "community" FAC (≥ 0.8 m/s) and "most limited community walkers" FAC (0.4-0.58 m/s), but not "household walkers" (< 0.4 m/s), benefitted from a clinically important difference. A highly significant (p< 0.001), substantial clinically important orthotic effect (0.10 m/s) was found. In terms of overall improvement of one or more FACs, 23% achieved this due to a training effect, compared with 43% due to an orthotic effect. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that functional electrical stimulation provides a training effect in those who are less impaired. Further work, which optimizes the use of the device for restoration of function, rather than as an orthotic device, will provide greater clarity on the effectiveness of functional electrical stimulation for eliciting a training effect.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/28368/
Source: BURO EPrints