Abstract
Backgroud Ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) have been widely used in stroke patients to assist in safe, energy efficient walking. Since they provide mediolateral ankle stability during stance, adequate toes clearance during swing phase and also facilitation of heel strike.
Objective To compare the efficacy of anterior or posterior plastic ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) for ankle spasticity.
Methods Crossover design with randomization for the interventions, blinded assessors was used. 20 patients with chronic stroke, Modified Ashworth scale (MAS) of ankle ≤ 2 and Tardieu angle ≥ 20 degrees. The participants were random to treat with anterior or posterior plastic AFOs and then were crossover to treat with the other one. Outcomes measurement was performed by using passive range of motion (PROM), MAS, walking velocity, stretch reflex surface EMG and walking surface EMG of medial gastrocnemius muscle. Patient satisfaction was evaluated at 1 month.
Results Twenty stroke patients with ankle spasticity were recruited. Mean age was 46.60(38-60) years old.Mean duration. of times since stroke was 9.35 (6-15) months. Comparison between two types of orthoses revealed statistically significant improvement of walking surface EMG of medial gastrocnemius muscles when using anterior plastic AFO more than posterior plastic AFO at p=0.015. Patients satisfaction were statistically significant higher when using anterior plastic AFO more than posterior plastic AFO at p<0.05.
Conclusion Anterior plastic AFO has more efficacy in reduced dynamic ankle spasticity during walking than posterior plastic AFO proven by comparison the dynamic electromyography changes in dynamic spasticity during walking.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
TCTR20210225006
Funding Statement
Research grant from Medical Inventory and Technology Center, Chulalongkorn University.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University,Bangkok,Thailand. approved the study (IRB no. 47951). Participants were informed about the procedure and provided written consent.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data availability is at the Faculty of medicine,Chulalongkorn University
Abbreviations
- (AFO)
- Ankle-foot orthosis
- (EMG)
- Electromyography
- (PROM)
- Passive range of motion
- (MAS)
- Modified Ashworth scale
- (RMS)
- Root Mean Square
