Examination of Factors Related to the Effect of Improving Gait Speed With Functional Electrical Stimulation Intervention for Stroke Patients

• DOI: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.02.012
• Publication Date: 2018-03-06T04:17:46Z
• Authors: Koichiro Sota; Yuki Uchiyama; Mitsuhiro Ochi; Shuji Matsumoto; Kenji Hachisuka; Kazuhisa Domen
• Keywords: Stroke; Functional electrical stimulation; Foot drop; Modified Ashworth scale

Functional electrical stimulation (FES) for patients with stroke and foot drop is an alternative to ankle orthoses. Characteristics of FES responders nonresponders have not been clarified.(1) To investigate the effects treatment on (2) determine which factors may relate nonresponders.Multicenter, nonrandomized, prospective study.Multicenter clinical trial.Participants included those who experienced resulting from stroke, were older than 20 years, could provide consent participate; they enrolled hospitals between January 2013 September 2015 performed rehabilitation FES.Stroke Impairment Assessment Set Foot-Pat Test (SIAS-FP), Fugl-Meyer Lower Extremity (FMA-LE), Modified Ashworth scale (MAS) joint dorsiflexion plantar flexion muscles, range motion (ROM) joint, 10-m walking test (10mWT), Timed Up & Go (TUG), 6-minute (6MWT) evaluated pre- postintervention. Age, gender, type onset times paretic side, Brunnstrom stage lower extremity (Br. stage-LE), Independence Measure (FIM), Ambulation Category (FAC), poststroke months, number interventions, total hours whether a brace was used extracted patients' medical records collected physiological examination day.The authors examined 10mWT age, Br. stage-LE, FIM, FAC, used, SIAS-FP, FMA-LE, MAS, ROM, TUG, 6MWT before intervention. Participants divided into change in <0.1 ≥0.1 m/s, respectively. Single multiple regression analyses data analysis. Additionally, changes groups compared.Fifty-eight 43 enrolled. The between-group differences, compared postintervention, significant terms SIAS-FP (P = .02), < .001), gait steps TUG .04), .006). In adjusted model, gender (odds ratio [OR], 3.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.426-12.25; P .007), interventions (OR, 1.028; CI, 1.003-1.070; .03), active ROM 1.047; 1.014-1.088; .005) remained significant.The related showing beyond minimal clinically important difference found be patient When greater are female, use positively, benefit more using FES.II.