Objective: To determine the perceived benefit, pattern and problems of use of the Odstock Dropped Foot Stimulator (ODFS) and the users' opinion of the service provided.
Design: Questionnaire sent in a single mailshot to current and past users of the ODFS. Returns were sent anonymously.
Setting: Outpatient-based clinical service.
Subjects: One hundred and sixty-eight current and 123 past users with diagnoses of stroke (CVA), multiple sclerosis (MS), incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI), traumatic brain injury (TBI) and cerebral palsy (CP).
Intervention: Functional electrical stimulation (FES) to correct dropped foot in subjects with an upper motor neuron lesion, using the ODFS.
Main outcome measures: Purpose-designed questionnaire.
Results:• Return rate 64% current users (mean duration of use 19.5 months) and 43% past users (mean duration of use 10.7 months). • Principal reason cited for using equipment was a reduction in the effort of walking. • Principal reasons identified for discontinuing were an improvement in mobility, electrode positioning difficulties and deteriorating mobility. • There were some problems with reliability of equipment. • Level of service provided was thought to be good.
Conclusion: The ODFS was perceived by the users to be of considerable benefit. A comprehensive clinical follow-up service is essential to achieve the maximum continuing benefit from FES-based orthoses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Liberson W, Holmquest H, Scott M. Functional electrotherapy: stimulation of the common peroneal nerve synchronised with the swing phase of gait of hemiplegic subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1961; 42: 202–205.
2.
Burridge JH, Swain ID, Taylor PN. Functional electrical stimulation: a review of the literature published on common peroneal nerve stimulation for the correction of dropped foot. Rev Clin Gerontol1998; 8: 155–161.
3.
Merletti R.Follow up of 30 cases of home use of peroneal braces. In: Advances in external control of human extremities VI. Belgrade: Yugoslav Committee for Electronics and Automation, 1978: 277–282.
4.
Burridge J, Taylor P, Hagan S, Swain I. Experience of clinical use of the Odstock Dropped Foot Stimulator. Artif Organs1997; 21(3): 254–260.
5.
Burridge J, Taylor P, Hagan S, Wood D, Swain I. The effects of common peroneal nerve stimulation on the effort and speed of walking: a randomised controlled clinical trial with chronic hemiplegic patients. Clin Rehabil1997; 11: 201–210.
6.
Burridge J, Taylor P, Hagan SA, Wood DE, Swain ID. The effect on the spasticity of the quadriceps muscles of stimulation of the common peroneal nerve of chronic hemiplegic subjects during walking. Physiotherapy1997; 83: 82–89.
7.
Taylor P, Burridge J, Dunkerley A et al. Long term follow up of 160 users of the Odstock Dropped Foot Stimulator. Proceedings of 6th Vienna International Workshop on Functional Electrostimulation. Vienna: Dept of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, University of Vienna, 1998: 189–192.
8.
Wade D, Wood V, Heller A, Maggs J, Langton Hewer R. Walking after stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med1987; 19: 25–30.
9.
Nene A. Physiological Cost Index of walking in able-bodied adolescents and adults. Clin Rehabil1993; 7: 319–326.
10.
Alreck PL, Settle RB. Creating item scales. In:The survey research handbook, second edition. Irwin, 1995: 115–116.
11.
Stefanovska A, Vodovnik L, Gros N, Rebersek S, Acimov-Janezic R. FES and spasticity. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng1989; 36: 738–745.
12.
Karsznia A, Dillner S, Ebefors I, Lundmark P. Why patients use or reject a peroneal muscle stimulator? In: Popovic DB ed. Advances in external control of human extremities X. Belgrade: Nauka, 1990: 251–269.
