4.5 Article

Smart Protocols for Physical Therapy of Foot Drop Based on Functional Electrical Stimulation: A Case Study

期刊

HEALTHCARE
卷 9, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9050502

关键词

functional electrical stimulation; foot drop; smart protocols; physical therapy; contralateral control; range of motion; stroke

资金

  1. Lund University Library

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditional rehabilitation approaches for foot drop include stretching exercises or FES delivery, but both methods lack patient engagement. Recent findings suggest that active psycho-physical engagement of the patient during physical therapy can better achieve full rehabilitation potential.
Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is used for treating foot drop by delivering electrical pulses to the anterior tibialis muscle during the swing phase of gait. This treatment requires that a patient can walk, which is mostly possible in the later phases of rehabilitation. In the early phase of recovery, the therapy conventionally consists of stretching exercises, and less commonly of FES delivered cyclically. Nevertheless, both approaches minimize patient engagement, which is inconsistent with recent findings that the full rehabilitation potential could be achieved by an active psycho-physical engagement of the patient during physical therapy. Following this notion, we proposed smart protocols whereby the patient sits and ankle movements are FES-induced by self-control. In six smart protocols, movements of the paretic ankle were governed by the non-paretic ankle with different control strategies, while in the seventh voluntary movements of the paretic ankle were used for stimulation triggering. One stroke survivor in the acute phase of recovery participated in the study. During the therapy, the patient's voluntary ankle range of motion increased and reached the value of normal gait after 15 sessions. Statistical analysis did not reveal the differences between the protocols in FES-induced movements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据