Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

A pilot study of a crossover trial with randomized use of ankle-foot orthoses for people with Charcot-Marie-tooth disease [with consumer summary]
Phillips MF, Robertson Z, Killen B, White B
Clinical Rehabilitation 2012 Jun;26(6):534-544
clinical trial
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

OBJECTIVES: This was a pilot and feasibility study of a crossover trial with randomized use of ankle-foot orthoses by people with Charcot-Marie-tooth (CMT) disease, investigating the effects of these on gait parameters, practical aspects of use and achievement of goals. DESIGN: A randomized crossover trial. SETTING: The community and ambulatory care. PARTICIPANTS: Eight adults with CMT disease type 1 or 2. INTERVENTIONS: Ligaflex, custom-made polypropylene and silicone ankle-foot orthoses worn in randomized order for three weeks each, with a washout week in-between; the orthoses of each participant's choice were then worn until 28 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was gait velocity; other outcome measures included Goal Attainment Scaling; Likert scores, concerning aspects of orthosis use and gait analysis parameters. RESULTS: Gait velocity was greatest wearing polypropylene orthoses, median 0.96 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.75 to 1.18) m/s, compared with silicone orthoses, median 0.88 (0.71 to 1.12) m/s, and no orthosis, median 0.79 (0.56 to 0.84) m/s, p = 0.006. The silicone orthoses met goals more successfully and scored more favourably for comfort, 5.0 (5.0 to 6.0), p = 0.003 and pain, 5.5 (4.0 to 7.0), p = 0.015. Future modifications to study methodology were identified, such as a longer period of wear and measurement of walking in different situations. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the feasibility of a larger trial. It indicated differences in walking velocity and parameters concerning wear of the orthoses that could be explored further. A further crossover trial would require 27 participants in order to show a clinically meaningful difference in velocity of 0.13 m/s with 90% power and alpha of 5%.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help