The effect of newly designed multi joint ankle foot orthosis on the gait and dynamic balance of stroke patients with foot drop.
Young Jun Shin, Dae Hwan Lee, Myoung-Kwon Kim
PMID 29200619WHAT IT FOUND
In 15 stroke patients with foot drop, the multi joint ankle foot orthosis improved 10-meter walk time, functional reach, and timed up and go compared with plastic ankle foot orthosis.
Both settings improved, but the sample was small.
Key findings
0115 stroke patients with foot drop were measured after wearing a plastic AFO and after wearing the newly designed multi joint AFO.
02With the posterior joint-stop setting, the multi joint AFO showed significant differences in the timed up and go test, 10-meter walk test, and functional reaching test compared with the plastic AFO, with p<0.01.
03With the Klenzak joint setting, the multi joint AFO also showed significant differences in the timed up and go test, 10-meter walk test, and functional reaching test compared with the plastic AFO, with p<0.01.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study included only 15 participants, and the authors state that the small sample size may have influenced the results and that they cannot be generalized to all stroke patients. Participants had to be able to walk at least 15 m without assistance, understand simple instructions, and have a Mini-Mental State Examination score greater than 24/30, so the study may not apply to patients with more severe stroke-related impairment. The supplied text does not report randomisation, blinding, or the order in which the plastic AFO and multi joint AFO were worn, so the comparison may be affected by testing order or therapist expectation.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the multi joint AFO is proven better than plastic AFO for all stroke patients with foot drop. The study had 15 carefully selected participants, and it did not report randomisation or blinding, so the observed score differences may not generalize.