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

Detailed Search Results

Functional electrical stimulation during walking in children with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy: a randomized cross-over trial [with consumer summary]
Moll I, Marcellis RGJ, Fleuren SM, Coenen MLP, Senden RHJ, Willems PJB, Speth LAWM, Witlox MA, Meijer K, Vermeulen RJ
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 2023 May;66(5):598-609
clinical trial
3/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; 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*

AIM: To study if functional electrical stimulation (FES) of the peroneal nerve, which activates dorsiflexion, can improve body functions, activities, and participation and could be an effective alternative treatment in individuals with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: A randomized cross-over trial was performed in 25 children with unilateral spastic CP (classified in Gross Motor Function Classification System levels I and II) aged 4 to 18 years (median age at inclusion 9 years 8 months, interquartile range 7 years to 13 years 8 months), 15 patients were male. The study consisted of two 12-week blocks of treatment, that is, conventional treatment (ankle foot orthosis (AFO) or adapted shoes) and FES, separated by a 6-week washout period. Outcome measures included the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS), the Cerebral Palsy Quality of Life questionnaire, and a three-dimensional gait analysis. RESULTS: Eighteen patients completed the trial. The proportion of GAS goals achieved was not significantly higher in the FES versus the conventional treatment phase (goal 1 p = 0.065; goal 2 p = 1.00). When walking while stimulated with FES, ankle dorsiflexion during mid-swing decreased over time (p = 0.006, average decrease of 4.8 degrees with FES), with a preserved increased ankle range of motion compared to conventional treatment (p < 0.001, mean range of motion with FES plus 10.1 degrees compared to AFO). No changes were found in the standard physical examination or regarding satisfaction with orthoses and feelings about the ability to dress yourself. In four patients, FES therapy failed; in 12 patients FES therapy continued after the trial. Interpretation: FES is not significantly worse than AFO; however, patient selection is critical, and a testing period and thorough follow-up are needed.

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