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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of children's orthopaedics 2013-12, Vol.7 (6), p.537-542 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |