The efficacy of neuroprosthesis in young hemiplegic patients, measured by three different gait indices: Early results

Purpose To evaluate functional electrical stimulation (FES) neuroprothesis as a method to improve gait in hemiplegic patients, using three different gait scoring methods as measures. Methods Five hemiplegic patients (four with cerebral palsy at GMFCS I, one with diffuse pontine glioma) with a mean a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of children's orthopaedics 2013-12, Vol.7 (6), p.537-542
Hauptverfasser: Danino, Barry, Khamis, Sam, Hemo, Yoram, Batt, Reuven, Snir, Erel, Wientroub, Shlomo, Hayek, Shlomo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 542
container_issue 6
container_start_page 537
container_title Journal of children's orthopaedics
container_volume 7
creator Danino, Barry
Khamis, Sam
Hemo, Yoram
Batt, Reuven
Snir, Erel
Wientroub, Shlomo
Hayek, Shlomo
description Purpose To evaluate functional electrical stimulation (FES) neuroprothesis as a method to improve gait in hemiplegic patients, using three different gait scoring methods as measures. Methods Five hemiplegic patients (four with cerebral palsy at GMFCS I, one with diffuse pontine glioma) with a mean age of 16.5 years were given a FES neuroprosthesis (NESS® L300™) that was applied and calibrated individually. After an adaptation period during which the participants increased their daily use of the neuroprosthesis, gait was assessed with the stimulation off and with the FES on. Kinematic, kinetic, and temporal spatial data were determined using motion analysis and summarized by three scoring methods: Gait Profile Score (GPS), Gait Deviation Index (GDI), and Gillette Gait Index (GGI). Indices were calculated using the Gaitabase program available online. Patients were followed for a minimum of 1 year. Results When comparing gait with and without stimulation, all scoring methods showed improvement. GPS and GDI of the affected leg were significantly improved: 12.23–10.23° (p = 0.017) and 72.36–78.08 (p = 0.002), respectively. By applying the movement analysis profile, the decomposed GPS score, we found that only the ankle dorsiflexion and the foot progression angle were significantly changed. GGI of the affected leg showed improvement, but without statistical significance: 168.88–131.64 (p = 0.221). Total GPS of legs and the GPS, GDI, and GGI of the nonaffected leg showed improvement without statistical significance. At the 1-year follow-up, all patients expressed high satisfaction and continued to use the device. Conclusions Dorsiflexion functional electrical stimulation improves gait in hemiplegic patients, as reflected by GPS, GDI, and GGI.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11832-013-0540-5
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_C6C</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3886350</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1007_s11832-013-0540-5</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2584459358</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c575t-47e7954ea9cc63e5268576f5e84f9a03ac327603757883718441592a615835f13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUcuKFDEUDaI4M60f4EYCblxYY163knIhyDCjwoCbcR0y6ZuqDPVokyqh_t403baPhbjKhfPIufcQ8oKzS86Yfps5N1JUjMuKgWIVPCLn3NSyEqDM49Ms-Bm5yPmBsZo1jXlKzoRSUhTxOVnuOqQYQvTOr3QKdMQlTbs05bnDHDONI12nZWxph0Pc9dhGT3dujjjO-Q0d0OUl4Zber3TuEiLdxhAwFZS2Ls5Fvo0e8zt67VK_0oR56ef8jDwJrs_4_PhuyNeb67urT9Xtl4-frz7cVh40zJXSqBtQ6Brva4kgagO6DoBGhcYx6bwUumZSgzZGam6U4tAIV3MwEgKXG_L-4Ltb7gfc-hIrud7uUhxcWu3kov0TGWNn2-m7laacDlgxeH00SNO3BfNsh5g99r0bcVqy5aphGkBIKNRXf1EfpiWNZT0roCSDRpZUG8IPLF9OnBOGUxjO7L5UeyjVllLtvlS7d375-xYnxc8WC0EcCLlAY4vp19f_cr08ilyL_yP4ATe7uyk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2584459358</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The efficacy of neuroprosthesis in young hemiplegic patients, measured by three different gait indices: Early results</title><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>Danino, Barry ; Khamis, Sam ; Hemo, Yoram ; Batt, Reuven ; Snir, Erel ; Wientroub, Shlomo ; Hayek, Shlomo</creator><creatorcontrib>Danino, Barry ; Khamis, Sam ; Hemo, Yoram ; Batt, Reuven ; Snir, Erel ; Wientroub, Shlomo ; Hayek, Shlomo</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To evaluate functional electrical stimulation (FES) neuroprothesis as a method to improve gait in hemiplegic patients, using three different gait scoring methods as measures. Methods Five hemiplegic patients (four with cerebral palsy at GMFCS I, one with diffuse pontine glioma) with a mean age of 16.5 years were given a FES neuroprosthesis (NESS® L300™) that was applied and calibrated individually. After an adaptation period during which the participants increased their daily use of the neuroprosthesis, gait was assessed with the stimulation off and with the FES on. Kinematic, kinetic, and temporal spatial data were determined using motion analysis and summarized by three scoring methods: Gait Profile Score (GPS), Gait Deviation Index (GDI), and Gillette Gait Index (GGI). Indices were calculated using the Gaitabase program available online. Patients were followed for a minimum of 1 year. Results When comparing gait with and without stimulation, all scoring methods showed improvement. GPS and GDI of the affected leg were significantly improved: 12.23–10.23° (p = 0.017) and 72.36–78.08 (p = 0.002), respectively. By applying the movement analysis profile, the decomposed GPS score, we found that only the ankle dorsiflexion and the foot progression angle were significantly changed. GGI of the affected leg showed improvement, but without statistical significance: 168.88–131.64 (p = 0.221). Total GPS of legs and the GPS, GDI, and GGI of the nonaffected leg showed improvement without statistical significance. At the 1-year follow-up, all patients expressed high satisfaction and continued to use the device. Conclusions Dorsiflexion functional electrical stimulation improves gait in hemiplegic patients, as reflected by GPS, GDI, and GGI.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1863-2521</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1863-2548</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11832-013-0540-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24432118</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Ankle ; Cerebral palsy ; Feet ; Females ; Gait ; Kinematics ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Motor ability ; Original Clinical ; Original Clinical Article ; Orthopedics ; Patients ; Pediatrics ; Range of motion ; Sensors ; Traumatic Surgery ; Variables ; Velocity ; Walking</subject><ispartof>Journal of children's orthopaedics, 2013-12, Vol.7 (6), p.537-542</ispartof><rights>2013 European Pediatric Orthopaedic Society (EPOS), unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.</rights><rights>EPOS 2013</rights><rights>2013. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c575t-47e7954ea9cc63e5268576f5e84f9a03ac327603757883718441592a615835f13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c575t-47e7954ea9cc63e5268576f5e84f9a03ac327603757883718441592a615835f13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3886350/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3886350/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,21966,27853,27924,27925,41120,42189,44945,45333,51576,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-013-0540-5$$EView_record_in_Springer_Nature$$FView_record_in_$$GSpringer_Nature</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24432118$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Danino, Barry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khamis, Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hemo, Yoram</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Batt, Reuven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snir, Erel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wientroub, Shlomo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hayek, Shlomo</creatorcontrib><title>The efficacy of neuroprosthesis in young hemiplegic patients, measured by three different gait indices: Early results</title><title>Journal of children's orthopaedics</title><addtitle>J Child Orthop</addtitle><addtitle>J Child Orthop</addtitle><description>Purpose To evaluate functional electrical stimulation (FES) neuroprothesis as a method to improve gait in hemiplegic patients, using three different gait scoring methods as measures. Methods Five hemiplegic patients (four with cerebral palsy at GMFCS I, one with diffuse pontine glioma) with a mean age of 16.5 years were given a FES neuroprosthesis (NESS® L300™) that was applied and calibrated individually. After an adaptation period during which the participants increased their daily use of the neuroprosthesis, gait was assessed with the stimulation off and with the FES on. Kinematic, kinetic, and temporal spatial data were determined using motion analysis and summarized by three scoring methods: Gait Profile Score (GPS), Gait Deviation Index (GDI), and Gillette Gait Index (GGI). Indices were calculated using the Gaitabase program available online. Patients were followed for a minimum of 1 year. Results When comparing gait with and without stimulation, all scoring methods showed improvement. GPS and GDI of the affected leg were significantly improved: 12.23–10.23° (p = 0.017) and 72.36–78.08 (p = 0.002), respectively. By applying the movement analysis profile, the decomposed GPS score, we found that only the ankle dorsiflexion and the foot progression angle were significantly changed. GGI of the affected leg showed improvement, but without statistical significance: 168.88–131.64 (p = 0.221). Total GPS of legs and the GPS, GDI, and GGI of the nonaffected leg showed improvement without statistical significance. At the 1-year follow-up, all patients expressed high satisfaction and continued to use the device. Conclusions Dorsiflexion functional electrical stimulation improves gait in hemiplegic patients, as reflected by GPS, GDI, and GGI.</description><subject>Ankle</subject><subject>Cerebral palsy</subject><subject>Feet</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Gait</subject><subject>Kinematics</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Motor ability</subject><subject>Original Clinical</subject><subject>Original Clinical Article</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Range of motion</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Traumatic Surgery</subject><subject>Variables</subject><subject>Velocity</subject><subject>Walking</subject><issn>1863-2521</issn><issn>1863-2548</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUcuKFDEUDaI4M60f4EYCblxYY163knIhyDCjwoCbcR0y6ZuqDPVokyqh_t403baPhbjKhfPIufcQ8oKzS86Yfps5N1JUjMuKgWIVPCLn3NSyEqDM49Ms-Bm5yPmBsZo1jXlKzoRSUhTxOVnuOqQYQvTOr3QKdMQlTbs05bnDHDONI12nZWxph0Pc9dhGT3dujjjO-Q0d0OUl4Zber3TuEiLdxhAwFZS2Ls5Fvo0e8zt67VK_0oR56ef8jDwJrs_4_PhuyNeb67urT9Xtl4-frz7cVh40zJXSqBtQ6Brva4kgagO6DoBGhcYx6bwUumZSgzZGam6U4tAIV3MwEgKXG_L-4Ltb7gfc-hIrud7uUhxcWu3kov0TGWNn2-m7laacDlgxeH00SNO3BfNsh5g99r0bcVqy5aphGkBIKNRXf1EfpiWNZT0roCSDRpZUG8IPLF9OnBOGUxjO7L5UeyjVllLtvlS7d375-xYnxc8WC0EcCLlAY4vp19f_cr08ilyL_yP4ATe7uyk</recordid><startdate>20131201</startdate><enddate>20131201</enddate><creator>Danino, Barry</creator><creator>Khamis, Sam</creator><creator>Hemo, Yoram</creator><creator>Batt, Reuven</creator><creator>Snir, Erel</creator><creator>Wientroub, Shlomo</creator><creator>Hayek, Shlomo</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131201</creationdate><title>The efficacy of neuroprosthesis in young hemiplegic patients, measured by three different gait indices: Early results</title><author>Danino, Barry ; Khamis, Sam ; Hemo, Yoram ; Batt, Reuven ; Snir, Erel ; Wientroub, Shlomo ; Hayek, Shlomo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c575t-47e7954ea9cc63e5268576f5e84f9a03ac327603757883718441592a615835f13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Ankle</topic><topic>Cerebral palsy</topic><topic>Feet</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Gait</topic><topic>Kinematics</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Motor ability</topic><topic>Original Clinical</topic><topic>Original Clinical Article</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Range of motion</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Traumatic Surgery</topic><topic>Variables</topic><topic>Velocity</topic><topic>Walking</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Danino, Barry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khamis, Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hemo, Yoram</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Batt, Reuven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snir, Erel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wientroub, Shlomo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hayek, Shlomo</creatorcontrib><collection>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of children's orthopaedics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Danino, Barry</au><au>Khamis, Sam</au><au>Hemo, Yoram</au><au>Batt, Reuven</au><au>Snir, Erel</au><au>Wientroub, Shlomo</au><au>Hayek, Shlomo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The efficacy of neuroprosthesis in young hemiplegic patients, measured by three different gait indices: Early results</atitle><jtitle>Journal of children's orthopaedics</jtitle><stitle>J Child Orthop</stitle><addtitle>J Child Orthop</addtitle><date>2013-12-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>537</spage><epage>542</epage><pages>537-542</pages><issn>1863-2521</issn><eissn>1863-2548</eissn><abstract>Purpose To evaluate functional electrical stimulation (FES) neuroprothesis as a method to improve gait in hemiplegic patients, using three different gait scoring methods as measures. Methods Five hemiplegic patients (four with cerebral palsy at GMFCS I, one with diffuse pontine glioma) with a mean age of 16.5 years were given a FES neuroprosthesis (NESS® L300™) that was applied and calibrated individually. After an adaptation period during which the participants increased their daily use of the neuroprosthesis, gait was assessed with the stimulation off and with the FES on. Kinematic, kinetic, and temporal spatial data were determined using motion analysis and summarized by three scoring methods: Gait Profile Score (GPS), Gait Deviation Index (GDI), and Gillette Gait Index (GGI). Indices were calculated using the Gaitabase program available online. Patients were followed for a minimum of 1 year. Results When comparing gait with and without stimulation, all scoring methods showed improvement. GPS and GDI of the affected leg were significantly improved: 12.23–10.23° (p = 0.017) and 72.36–78.08 (p = 0.002), respectively. By applying the movement analysis profile, the decomposed GPS score, we found that only the ankle dorsiflexion and the foot progression angle were significantly changed. GGI of the affected leg showed improvement, but without statistical significance: 168.88–131.64 (p = 0.221). Total GPS of legs and the GPS, GDI, and GGI of the nonaffected leg showed improvement without statistical significance. At the 1-year follow-up, all patients expressed high satisfaction and continued to use the device. Conclusions Dorsiflexion functional electrical stimulation improves gait in hemiplegic patients, as reflected by GPS, GDI, and GGI.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>24432118</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11832-013-0540-5</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 1863-2521
ispartof Journal of children's orthopaedics, 2013-12, Vol.7 (6), p.537-542
issn 1863-2521
1863-2548
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3886350
source Springer Nature OA Free Journals
subjects Ankle
Cerebral palsy
Feet
Females
Gait
Kinematics
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Motor ability
Original Clinical
Original Clinical Article
Orthopedics
Patients
Pediatrics
Range of motion
Sensors
Traumatic Surgery
Variables
Velocity
Walking
title The efficacy of neuroprosthesis in young hemiplegic patients, measured by three different gait indices: Early results
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T01%3A36%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_C6C&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20efficacy%20of%20neuroprosthesis%20in%20young%20hemiplegic%20patients,%20measured%20by%20three%20different%20gait%20indices:%20Early%20results&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20children's%20orthopaedics&rft.au=Danino,%20Barry&rft.date=2013-12-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=537&rft.epage=542&rft.pages=537-542&rft.issn=1863-2521&rft.eissn=1863-2548&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11832-013-0540-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_C6C%3E2584459358%3C/proquest_C6C%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2584459358&rft_id=info:pmid/24432118&rft_sage_id=10.1007_s11832-013-0540-5&rfr_iscdi=true