Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1996 Jan;77(1):19-24.
doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90214-2.

Peroneal stimulator; evaluation for the correction of spastic drop foot in hemiplegia

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Peroneal stimulator; evaluation for the correction of spastic drop foot in hemiplegia

M H Granat et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the orthotic and therapeutic value of the peroneal stimulator (PS) for adult hemiplegic patients.

Design: This was a two-period crossover study lasting 11 weeks. After recruitment each patient had a 4-week control period followed by a 4-week treatment period. The patients were assessed before the control period, after the control period, and after the treatment period.

Setting: Nineteen patients were recruited from physiotherapy departments in the Glasgow area; 2 subsequently dropped out before the treatment period.

Patients: All patients had hemiplegia as a result of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and were greater than 3 months but less than 36 months post-CVA. Average time since stroke was 7 months.

Main outcome measures: The patients' gait was assessed over smooth linoleum, carpet, and uneven ground. Gait was evaluated using a switch-based portable system. Outcome measures were the temporal gait parameters of speed, symmetry, heel strike, and foot inversion during stance. The gait evaluation was repeated on 5 separate days at each assessment. The Barthel Index was applied to each session.

Results: There was a significant orthotic improvement in inversion on all surfaces and for symmetry on linoleum (AN-OVA, p = .05). There was no significant improvement in patients' gait when not using the PS. There was a significant improvement in the Barthel Index over the treatment period (Wilcoxon, p = .05).

Conclusion: Use of the PS an an orthotic device late in the rehabilitation program would be appropriate for a selected subpopulation of patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources