Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Long-Term Follow-up to a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Peroneal Nerve Functional Electrical Stimulation to an Ankle Foot Orthosis for Patients With Chronic Stroke

This is going to be rather useless because of the expense of the BioNess or the WalkAide compared to a cheap AFO will likely never be approved by your insurance. But they don't seem to have tested for endpoints of walking without the device. That would be the best outcome.
http://nnr.sagepub.com/content/29/10/911?etoc
  1. Francois Bethoux, MD1⇑
  2. Helen L. Rogers, PhD2
  3. Karen J. Nolan, PhD3,4
  4. Gary M. Abrams, MD5
  5. Thiru Annaswamy, MD, MA6,7
  6. Murray Brandstater, MD, PhD8
  7. Barbara Browne, MD9
  8. Judith M. Burnfield, PhD10
  9. Wuwei Feng, MD, MS11
  10. Mitchell J. Freed, MD12
  11. Carolyn Geis, MD13
  12. Jason Greenberg, MD14
  13. Mark Gudesblatt, MD15
  14. Farha Ikramuddin, MD16
  15. Arun Jayaraman, PhD17
  16. Steven A. Kautz, PhD11,18
  17. Helmi L. Lutsep, MD19
  18. Sangeetha Madhavan, PhD20
  19. Jill Meilahn, DO21
  20. William S. Pease, MD22
  21. Noel Rao, MD23
  22. Subramani Seetharama, MD24
  23. Pramod Sethi, MD25
  24. Margaret A. Turk, MD26
  25. Roi Ann Wallis, MD27,28
  26. Conrad Kufta, MD2
  1. 1Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
  2. 2Innovative Neurotronics, Austin, TX, USA
  3. 3Kessler Foundation, West Orange, NJ, USA
  4. 4Rutgers—New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA
  5. 5UCSF/San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
  6. 6VA North Texas Health Care System, Dallas, TX, USA
  7. 7UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
  8. 8Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA
  9. 9Magee Rehabilitation Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA
  10. 10Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital’s Institute for Rehabilitation Science and Engineering, Lincoln, NE, USA
  11. 11Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
  12. 12Florida Hospital Neuroscience and Orthopedic Research Institute, Orlando, FL, USA
  13. 13Halifax Health Center for Neurosciences, Daytona Beach, FL, USA
  14. 14Helen Hayes Hospital, West Haverstraw, NY, USA
  15. 15South Shore Neurologic Associates, Patchogue, NY, USA
  16. 16University of Minnesota Fairview, Minneapolis, MN, USA
  17. 17Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
  18. 18Ralph H Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, SC, USA
  19. 19Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
  20. 20University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
  21. 21Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, WI, USA
  22. 22The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
  23. 23Marianjoy Rehabilitation Hospital, Wheaton, IL, USA
  24. 24Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA
  25. 25Guilford Neurologic Associates, Greensboro, NC, USA
  26. 26SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA
  27. 27West Los Angeles VA Healthcare Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
  28. 28David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
  1. Francois Bethoux, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Desk U10, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. Email: bethouf@ccf.org

Abstract

Background. Evidence supports peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation (FES) as an effective alternative to ankle foot orthoses (AFO) for treatment of foot drop poststroke, but few long-term, randomized controlled comparisons exist. Objective. Compare changes in gait quality and function between FES and AFOs in individuals with foot drop poststroke over a 12-month period. Methods. Follow-up analysis of an unblinded randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01087957) conducted at 30 rehabilitation centers comparing FES to AFOs over 6 months. Subjects continued to wear their randomized device for another 6 months to final 12-month assessments. Subjects used study devices for all home and community ambulation. Multiply imputed intention-to-treat analyses were utilized; primary endpoints were tested for noninferiority and secondary endpoints for superiority. Primary endpoints: 10 Meter Walk Test (10MWT) and device-related serious adverse event rate. Secondary endpoints: 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), GaitRite Functional Ambulation Profile, and Modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile (mEFAP). Results. A total of 495 subjects were randomized, and 384 completed the 12-month follow-up. FES proved noninferior to AFOs for all primary endpoints. Both FES and AFO groups showed statistically and clinically significant improvement for 10MWT compared with initial measurement. No statistically significant between-group differences were found for primary or secondary endpoints. The FES group demonstrated statistically significant improvements for 6MWT and mEFAP Stair-time subscore. Conclusions. At 12 months, both FES and AFOs continue to demonstrate equivalent gains in gait speed. Results suggest that long-term FES use may lead to additional improvements in walking endurance and functional ambulation; further research is needed to confirm these findings.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)