Kinematic and kinetic benefits of implantable peroneal nerve stimulation in people with post-stroke drop foot using an ankle-foot orthosis.

BACKGROUND Contralesional 'drop foot' after stroke is usually treated with an ankle-foot orthosis (AFO). However, AFOs may hamper ankle motion during stance. Peroneal functional electrical stimulation (FES) is an alternative treatment that provides active dorsiflexion and allows normal ankle motion. Despite this theoretical advantage of FES, the kinematic and kinetic differences between AFO and FES have been scarcely investigated. OBJECTIVE To test whether walking with implanted FES leads to improvements in stance stability, propulsion, and swing initiation compared to AFO. METHODS A 4-channel peroneal nerve stimulator (ActiGait ®) was implanted in 22 chronic patients after stroke. Instrumented gait analyses were performed during comfortable walking up to 26 weeks (n = 10) or 52 weeks (n = 12) after FES-system activation. Kinematics of knee and ankle (stance and swing phase) and kinetics (stance phase) of gait were determined, besides spatiotemporal parameters. Finally, we determined whether differences between devices regarding late stance kine(ma)tics correlated with those regarding the swing phase. RESULTS In mid-stance, knee stability improved as the peak knee extension velocity was lower with FES (β = 18.1°/s, p = 0.007), while peak ankle plantarflexion velocity (β = -29.2°/s, p = 0.006) and peak ankle plantarflexion power (β = -0.2 W/kg, p = 0.018) were higher with FES compared to AFO. With FES, the ground reaction force (GRF) vector at peak ankle power (i.e., 'propulsion') was oriented more anteriorly (β = -1.1°, p = 0.001). Similarly, the horizontal GRF (β = -0.8% body mass, p = 0.003) and gait speed (β = 0.03 m/s, p = 0.015) were higher. An increase in peak ankle plantarflexion velocity and a more forward oriented GRF angle during late stance were moderately associated with an increase in hip flexion velocity during initial swing (rs = 0.502, p = 0.029 and rs = 0.504, p = 0.028, respectively). CONCLUSIONS This study substantiates the evidence that implantable peroneal FES as a treatment for post-stroke drop foot may be superior over AFO in terms of knee stability, ankle plantarflexion power, and propulsion.

[1]  R. van Swigchem,et al.  Near-normal gait pattern with peroneal electrical stimulation as a neuroprosthesis in the chronic phase of stroke: a case report. , 2011, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[2]  Herman J. Woltring,et al.  A fortran package for generalized, cross-validatory spline smoothing and differentiation , 1986 .

[3]  May Q. Liu,et al.  Muscle contributions to support and progression over a range of walking speeds. , 2008, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  Frans Nollet,et al.  Effects of implantable peroneal nerve stimulation on gait quality, energy expenditure, participation and user satisfaction in patients with post-stroke drop foot using an ankle-foot orthosis. , 2015, Restorative neurology and neuroscience.

[5]  I. Campanini,et al.  A method to differentiate the causes of stiff-knee gait in stroke patients. , 2013, Gait & posture.

[6]  Richard R Neptune,et al.  The influence of solid ankle-foot-orthoses on forward propulsion and dynamic balance in healthy adults during walking. , 2014, Clinical biomechanics.

[7]  V. Weerdesteyn,et al.  Falls in individuals with stroke. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[8]  Richard W. Bohannon Minimal clinically important difference for change in comfortable gait speed of adults with pathology: a systematic review , 2014 .

[9]  F. Zajac,et al.  Muscle force redistributes segmental power for body progression during walking. , 2004, Gait & posture.

[10]  Laurence P J Kenney,et al.  Functional electrical stimulation versus ankle foot orthoses for foot-drop: A meta-analysis of orthotic effects. , 2016, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[11]  R. Neptune,et al.  Pre-swing deficits in forward propulsion, swing initiation and power generation by individual muscles during hemiparetic walking. , 2010, Journal of biomechanics.

[12]  M. Pandy,et al.  Muscles that influence knee flexion velocity in double support: implications for stiff-knee gait. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.

[13]  Joanne K Gronely,et al.  Effect of AFO Design on Walking after Stroke: Impact of Ankle Plantar Flexion Contracture , 2010, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[14]  Control of Stroke-Related Genu Recurvatum With Prolonged Timing of Dorsiflexor Functional Electrical Stimulation: A Case Study. , 2016, Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT.

[15]  Richard R Neptune,et al.  Biomechanics and muscle coordination of human walking: part II: lessons from dynamical simulations and clinical implications. , 2003, Gait & posture.

[16]  Kara K. Patterson,et al.  Evaluation of gait symmetry after stroke: a comparison of current methods and recommendations for standardization. , 2010, Gait & posture.

[17]  E. Çakar,et al.  The ankle-foot orthosis improves balance and reduces fall risk of chronic spastic hemiparetic patients. , 2010, European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine.

[18]  S. N. Bailey,et al.  Spatiotemporal, Kinematic, and Kinetic Effects of a Peroneal Nerve Stimulator Versus an Ankle Foot Orthosis in Hemiparetic Gait , 2013, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[19]  Y. Otaka,et al.  Prevalence of Genu Recurvatum during Walking and Associated Knee Pain in Chronic Hemiplegic Stroke Patients: A Preliminary Survey. , 2016, Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association.

[20]  Richard R Neptune,et al.  The effect of walking speed on muscle function and mechanical energetics. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[21]  Liberson Wt,et al.  Functional electrotherapy: stimulation of the peroneal nerve synchronized with the swing phase of the gait of hemiplegic patients. , 1961, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[22]  Y. Bleyenheuft,et al.  Treatment of genu recurvatum in hemiparetic adult patients: a systematic literature review. , 2010, Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine.

[23]  Richard W. Bohannon,et al.  Minimal clinically important difference for change in comfortable gait speed of adults with pathology: a systematic review. , 2014, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[24]  Steven A. Kautz,et al.  Stepping with an ankle foot orthosis re-examined: a mechanical perspective for clinical decision making. , 2010, Clinical biomechanics.

[25]  D. Liebetanz,et al.  Towards physiological ankle movements with the ActiGait implantable drop foot stimulator in chronic stroke. , 2013, Restorative neurology and neuroscience.

[26]  J. Higginson,et al.  Passive-dynamic ankle–foot orthosis replicates soleus but not gastrocnemius muscle function during stance in gait: Insights for orthosis prescription , 2016, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[27]  Maarten J. IJzerman,et al.  The orthotic effect of functional electrical stimulation on the improvement of walking in stroke patients with a dropped foot: a systematic review. , 2004, Artificial organs.

[28]  A. Kottink,et al.  Effects of an implantable two-channel peroneal nerve stimulator versus conventional walking device on spatiotemporal parameters and kinematics of hemiparetic gait. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.