Skip to content

Functional Electrical Stimulation for Footdrop in Hemiparesis

Functional Electrical Stimulation for Footdrop in Hemiparesis

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00148343
Enrollment
110
Registered
2005-09-07
Start date
2005-07-31
Completion date
2010-08-02
Last updated
2018-06-01

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Stroke, Hemiplegia

Keywords

hemiplegia, hemiparesis, stroke, foot-drop, electrical stimulation, ankle-foot-orthosis

Brief summary

The objective of this research is to determine if electrical stimulation can improve the strength and coordination of the lower limb muscles, and the walking ability of stroke survivors. The knowledge gained from this study may lead to enhancements in the quality of life of stroke survivors by improving their neurological recovery and mobility. The results may lead to substantial changes in the standard of care for the treatment of lower limb hemiparesis after stroke.

Detailed description

Hemiplegia is a major consequence of stroke and contributes significantly to the physical disability of stroke survivors. Foot-drop, or inability to dorsiflex the paretic ankle during the swing phase of gait, and ankle instability during stance phase, are important gait abnormalities that contribute to reduced mobility among stroke survivors. In the United States, the standard of care in addressing these deficits is the custom molded ankle-foot-orthosis (AFO). However, evolving data now demonstrate that active repetitive movement training is the principal substrate for facilitating motor relearning after stroke. Motor relearning is defined as the reacquisition of motor ability after central nervous system injury. Thus, while an AFO may assist stroke survivors to ambulate in the short-term, it is possible that it also inhibits recovery in the long-term. Previous studies have demonstrated that active repetitive movement exercises mediated by neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) facilitate motor relearning among stroke survivors. In particular, studies have reported that some chronic stroke survivors treated with a peroneal nerve stimulator for foot-drop experience sufficient recovery that they no longer need the peroneal nerve stimulator or an AFO for community ambulation. However, there are no blinded randomized clinical trials that rigorously evaluate the motor relearning effects of ambulation training with peroneal nerve stimulators. Thus, the primary aim of this project is to assess the effects of transcutaneous peroneal nerve stimulation on lower limb motor relearning among chronic stroke survivors. The secondary aim is to assess the effects of transcutaneous peroneal nerve stimulation on lower limb mobility (disability) and overall quality of life. A single-blinded randomized clinical trial will be carried out to assess the effects of ambulation training with a peroneal nerve stimulator among chronic stroke survivors compared to ambulation training with conventional standard of care (which may include an AFO). Subjects will be treated for 12 weeks and followed for a total of another 6 months. This project will determine the effectiveness of peroneal nerve stimulation in facilitating motor relearning and improving the mobility and quality of life of stroke survivors. This proposed approach is expected to improve patient outcome and challenge the present clinical paradigm of prescribing AFOs for stroke survivors with foot-drop.

Interventions

DEVICEOdstock Dropped-Foot Stimulator (ODFS)

Device implementation & use for \ 13 weeks (until 2nd Outcomes Assessment (1st post-treatment Outcomes Assessment)). The ODFS then will be returned to the investigators.

OTHERConventional Standard of Care

Conventional standard of care (which may include implementation & use of a study-specific Custom Molded Hinged Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO)) for \ 13 weeks (until 2nd Outcomes Assessment (1st post-treatment Outcomes Assessment)). The AFO, if implemented, may continue to be used afterwards since it is an element of the standard of care for this patient population.

Traditional physical therapy treatment for 12 weeks.

Sponsors

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
CollaboratorNIH
Case Western Reserve University
CollaboratorOTHER
MetroHealth Medical Center
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Stroke survivors \>90 days from most recent clinical hemorrhagic or nonhemorrhagic stroke * Age: 18-80 years * Unilateral hemiparesis * Medically stable * Sufficient endurance & motor ability to ambulate at least 30 feet continuously with minimal assistance \[requiring contact guard to no more than 25% physical help\] or less without the use of an AFO * Berg Balance Scale score of 24 or greater without any assistive devices * Ankle dorsiflexion strength of no greater than 4/5 on the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale while standing * Demonstrate foot-drop during ambulation such that gait instability \[need for supervision, physical assistance or assistive device (cane, walker) to maintain balance or prevent falls\] or inefficient gait patterns \[gait pattern manifesting dragging or catching of the affected toes during swing phase of gait, or use of compensatory strategies such as circumducting the affected limb, vaulting with the unaffected limb or hiking the affected hip to clear the toes\] are exhibited * Ankle dorsiflexion to at least neutral while standing in response to NMES of the common peroneal nerve without painful hypersensitivity to the NMES * If using an AFO, willing to terminate its use and comply with study requirements

Exclusion criteria

* Require an AFO to maintain knee stability (prevention of knee flexion collapse) during stance phase of gait * Edema of the affected lower limb which interferes with the safe and effective use of a peroneal nerve stimulator * Skin breakdown of the affected lower limb which interferes with the safe and effective use of a peroneal nerve stimulator * Absent sensation of the affected lower limb * History of potentially fatal cardiac arrhythmias, such as ventricular tachycardia, supraventricular tachycardia, and rapid ventricular response atrial fibrillation with hemodynamic instability * Demand pacemakers or any other implanted electronic systems * Pregnant women * Uncontrolled seizure disorder * Parkinson's Disease * Spinal cord injury * Traumatic brain injury with evidence of motor weakness * Multiple sclerosis * Fixed ankle plantar flexor contracture * Peroneal nerve injury at the fibular head as the cause of foot-drop * Uncompensated hemineglect * Severely impaired cognition and communication * Painful hypersensitivity to NMES of the common peroneal nerve * Inadequate social support (potential unlikeliness to comply with treatment & follow-up) * History of Botulinum toxin (Botox) injection to either of the lower extremities within the 3 month period preceding study entry * Knee hyperextension (genu recurvatum) that cannot be adequately corrected with peroneal nerve stimulation

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA)Weeks 0, 12, 24, 36Lower limb motor impairment as measured by the lower limb portion of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) which consists of 17 items, with a maximum possible score of 34 points, with lower scores indicating higher impairment. Each item was answered using a 3-point ordinal scale (0 = cannot perform, 1 = can partially perform, 2 = can fully perform).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Steps Per MinuteWeeks 0, 12, 24, 36The number of steps taken by participants in one minute
Modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile(mEFAP)Weeks 0, 12, 24, 36The mEFAP comprises 5 individually timed tasks performed over different environmental terrains. The subtasks include (1) a 5-meter walk on a hard floor; (2) a 5-meter walk on a carpeted surface; (3) rising from a chair, a 3-meter walk, and return to a seated position (the timed up-and-go test); (4) traversing a standardized obstacle course; and (5) ascending and descending 5 stairs. The mEFAP is performed with or without the use of an orthotic device or an AD. Manual assistance (MA) is provided as necessary. The subject can use rails when climbing the stairs. The 5 timed subscores are added to derive a total score in seconds.
Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL)Weeks 0, 12, 24, 36The Stroke Specific Quality Of Life scale (SS-QOL) is a patient-centered outcome measure intended to provide an assessment of health-related quality of life specific to patients with stroke. Patients must respond to each question of the SS-QOL with reference to the past week. It is a self-report scale containing 49 items in 12 domains: Mobility, Energy, Upper extremity function, Work/productivity, Mood, Self-care, Social roles, Family roles, Vision, Language, Thinking, Personality. There are 11 subscales. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale with higher scores indicate better functioning. The overall SS-QOL summary score (summation of all items) is presented here. Scores range from 49-245.
Gait Speedbaseline, 12, 24 and 36 weeks

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Subjects screened over 5-yr study period: 469. Subjects completing informed consent and eligibility eval: 158. Subjects enrolled: 110. Last date of enrollment:10/27/2009. Final date subject study completion: 8/2/2010. All subject screening, enrollment, and study participation took place at an academic medical center.

Pre-assignment details

Enrolled subjects (n=110) were stratified by presence or absence of dorsiflexion, based on clinical exam, prior to randomization into treatment and control groups. No enrolled subjects were excluded from the trial prior to assignment to groups.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Peroneal Nerve Stimulation
Odstock Dropped Foot Stimulator
54
Standard of Care
No device or ankle foot orthosis
56
Total110

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyPhysician Decision34
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject127

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicStandard of CarePeroneal Nerve StimulationTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
5 Participants7 Participants12 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
51 Participants47 Participants98 Participants
Age, Continuous53.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.1
52.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.2
53.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.1
Region of Enrollment
United States
56 participants54 participants110 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
19 Participants24 Participants43 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
37 Participants30 Participants67 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 540 / 56
other
Total, other adverse events
39 / 5420 / 56
serious
Total, serious adverse events
21 / 547 / 56

Outcome results

Primary

Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA)

Lower limb motor impairment as measured by the lower limb portion of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) which consists of 17 items, with a maximum possible score of 34 points, with lower scores indicating higher impairment. Each item was answered using a 3-point ordinal scale (0 = cannot perform, 1 = can partially perform, 2 = can fully perform).

Time frame: Weeks 0, 12, 24, 36

Population: For intent-to-treat analysis, all participants who were randomized and completed baseline assessments were included in the analysis

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Peroneal Nerve StimulationFugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA)Baseline20.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.9
Peroneal Nerve StimulationFugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA)24- weeks21.26 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.05
Peroneal Nerve StimulationFugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA)12- weeks21.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.27
Peroneal Nerve StimulationFugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA)36 weeks21.93 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.84
Standard of CareFugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA)36 weeks21.02 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.69
Standard of CareFugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA)Baseline20.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6
Standard of CareFugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA)12- weeks21.18 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.72
Standard of CareFugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA)24- weeks21.17 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.58
95% CI: [-0.2, 2.75]
Secondary

Gait Speed

Time frame: baseline, 12, 24 and 36 weeks

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Peroneal Nerve StimulationGait Speed12-weeks0.40 meters/secStandard Deviation 0.25
Peroneal Nerve StimulationGait SpeedBaseline0.35 meters/secStandard Deviation 0.2
Peroneal Nerve StimulationGait Speed24-weeks0.44 meters/secStandard Deviation 0.28
Peroneal Nerve StimulationGait Speed36-weeks0.44 meters/secStandard Deviation 0.28
Standard of CareGait Speed36-weeks0.47 meters/secStandard Deviation 0.24
Standard of CareGait Speed24-weeks0.46 meters/secStandard Deviation 0.25
Standard of CareGait SpeedBaseline0.40 meters/secStandard Deviation 0.24
Standard of CareGait Speed12-weeks0.47 meters/secStandard Deviation 0.24
p-value: <0.0595% CI: [-0.045, 0.057]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile(mEFAP)

The mEFAP comprises 5 individually timed tasks performed over different environmental terrains. The subtasks include (1) a 5-meter walk on a hard floor; (2) a 5-meter walk on a carpeted surface; (3) rising from a chair, a 3-meter walk, and return to a seated position (the timed up-and-go test); (4) traversing a standardized obstacle course; and (5) ascending and descending 5 stairs. The mEFAP is performed with or without the use of an orthotic device or an AD. Manual assistance (MA) is provided as necessary. The subject can use rails when climbing the stairs. The 5 timed subscores are added to derive a total score in seconds.

Time frame: Weeks 0, 12, 24, 36

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Peroneal Nerve StimulationModified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile(mEFAP)Baseline121.54 secondsStandard Deviation 86.59
Peroneal Nerve StimulationModified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile(mEFAP)12- weeks107.92 secondsStandard Deviation 78.8
Peroneal Nerve StimulationModified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile(mEFAP)24-weeks110.81 secondsStandard Deviation 81.89
Peroneal Nerve StimulationModified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile(mEFAP)36-weeks111.81 secondsStandard Deviation 83.16
Standard of CareModified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile(mEFAP)36-weeks96.20 secondsStandard Deviation 65.2
Standard of CareModified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile(mEFAP)Baseline118.39 secondsStandard Deviation 74.1
Standard of CareModified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile(mEFAP)24-weeks97.25 secondsStandard Deviation 71.4
Standard of CareModified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile(mEFAP)12- weeks93.47 secondsStandard Deviation 73.02
p-value: <0.0595% CI: [-14.096, 14.716]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Steps Per Minute

The number of steps taken by participants in one minute

Time frame: Weeks 0, 12, 24, 36

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Peroneal Nerve StimulationSteps Per MinuteBaseline65.0 Steps/MinStandard Deviation 22
Peroneal Nerve StimulationSteps Per Minute12-weeks67.4 Steps/MinStandard Deviation 21.5
Peroneal Nerve StimulationSteps Per Minute24-weeks69.3 Steps/MinStandard Deviation 26.35
Peroneal Nerve StimulationSteps Per Minute36-weeks70.84 Steps/MinStandard Deviation 26.83
Standard of CareSteps Per Minute36-weeks73.74 Steps/MinStandard Deviation 22.73
Standard of CareSteps Per MinuteBaseline66.7 Steps/MinStandard Deviation 22.7
Standard of CareSteps Per Minute24-weeks72.0 Steps/MinStandard Deviation 23.16
Standard of CareSteps Per Minute12-weeks72.6 Steps/MinStandard Deviation 22.6
p-value: <0.0595% CI: [-10.05, -0.09]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL)

The Stroke Specific Quality Of Life scale (SS-QOL) is a patient-centered outcome measure intended to provide an assessment of health-related quality of life specific to patients with stroke. Patients must respond to each question of the SS-QOL with reference to the past week. It is a self-report scale containing 49 items in 12 domains: Mobility, Energy, Upper extremity function, Work/productivity, Mood, Self-care, Social roles, Family roles, Vision, Language, Thinking, Personality. There are 11 subscales. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale with higher scores indicate better functioning. The overall SS-QOL summary score (summation of all items) is presented here. Scores range from 49-245.

Time frame: Weeks 0, 12, 24, 36

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Peroneal Nerve StimulationStroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL)12-weeks191.62 Summary ScoreStandard Deviation 42.39
Peroneal Nerve StimulationStroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL)Baseline179.12 Summary ScoreStandard Deviation 35.73
Peroneal Nerve StimulationStroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL)24-weeks195.66 Summary ScoreStandard Deviation 38.25
Peroneal Nerve StimulationStroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL)36-weeks190.23 Summary ScoreStandard Deviation 44.73
Standard of CareStroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL)36-weeks182.95 Summary ScoreStandard Deviation 39.76
Standard of CareStroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL)12-weeks185.42 Summary ScoreStandard Deviation 34.76
Standard of CareStroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL)24-weeks184.87 Summary ScoreStandard Deviation 38.88
Standard of CareStroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL)Baseline175.30 Summary ScoreStandard Deviation 40.67
95% CI: [-12.79, 8.89]

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026