Carbon Modular Orthosis (Ca.M.O.): An innovative hybrid modular ankle-foot orthosis to tune the variable rehabilitation needs in hemiplegic cerebral palsy
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May 4, 2017
Carbon Modular Orthosis (Ca.M.O.): An innovative hybrid modular ankle-foot orthosis to tune the variable rehabilitation needs in hemiplegic cerebral palsy
BACKGROUND: Hemiplegic Celebral Palsy (CP) children commonly use AFO orthoses as walking aids. It is known that AFOs may have a detrimental effect on gait. To enhance mechanical properties of AFOs we developed an innovative, custom-made, carbon, ankle-foot orthosis (Ca.M.O) which offers the opportunity to tune its response to the patient’s gait characteristics and/or functional maturity.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of Ca.M.O. in improving gait in a group of hemiplegic CP children and to compare its performances with those of commonly prescribed AFO.
METHODS: A clinical and instrumental gait analysis was performed on a group of 15 spastic hemiplegic children (WINTERS-GAGE type I-II) walking barefoot, with commonly prescribed AFOs and with Ca.M.O.
Temporal, kinematic and kinetic data were collected with an 8 cameras optoelectronic system and 2 force plates.
RESULTS: Studied variables were comparable walking with Ca.M.O. and with the commonly prescribed AFO and are significantly different (p < 0.01) with respect to barefoot condition.
CONCLUSIONS: Both types of orthoses normalize the kinematics of the first and second ankle rocker. The main advantage of Ca.M.O. is its modularity that allows to tune its effect on gait in relationship with the progress or involution of the child’s functional development.
BalabanB., YasarE., DalU., YaziciogluK., MohurH., & KalyonT. A. (2007). The effect of hinged ankle-foot orthosis on gait and energy expenditure in spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29(2), 139–144.
2.
BartonekA., ErikssonM., & Gutierrez-FarewikE. (2007). A new carbon fibre spring orthosis for children with plantarflexor weakness. Gait & Posture, 25(4), 652–656. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.07.013
3.
BowkerP. (1993). The biomechanics of orthoses. In CondieP. D. N., BaderD. L., PrattS. J., WallaceW. A., (Eds.), Biomechanical Basis of Orthotic Management
(pp. 27–37). Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heineman.
4.
BrehmM. A., HarlaarJ., & SchwartzM. (2008). Effect of ankle-foot orthoses on walking efficiency and gait in children with cerebral palsy. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine529–534. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0209
5.
BrunnerR., MeierG., & RueppT. (1998). Comparison of a stiff and a spring-type ankle-foot orthosis to improve gait in spastic hemiplegic children. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 18(6), 719–726.
6.
BuckonC., ThomasS., Jakobson-HustonS., SussmanM., & AionaM. (2001). Comparison of three ankle-foot orthosis configurations for children with spastic hemiplegia. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 43(6), 371–378.
7.
CarlbergE., & Hadders-AlgraM. (2005). Postural dysfunction in children with cerebral palsy: Some implications for therapeutic guidance. . Neural Plasticity, 12(2-3), 221–228. doi: 10.1155/NP.2005.221
8.
DesloovereK., MolenaersG., FeysH., HuenaertsC., CallewaertB., & Van de WalleP. (2006). Do dynamic and static clinical measurements correlate with gait analysis parameters in children with cerebral palsy?Posture, 24(3), 302–313. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.10.008
9.
DursunE., DursunN., & AlicanD. (2002). Ankle-foot orthoses: Effect on gait in children with cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(7), 345–347. doi: 10.1080/0963820110090724
10.
FigueiredoE., FerreiraG., MaiaMoreira, R., KirkwoodR., & FettersL. (2008). Efficacy of ankle-foot orthoses on gait of children with cerebral palsy: Systematic review of literature. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 20(3), 207–223. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0b013e318181fb34
11.
HeyrmanL., FeysH., MolenaersG., JaspersE., MonariD., NieuwenhuysA., & DesloovereK. (2014). Altered trunk movements during gait in children with spastic diplegia: Compensatory or underlying trunk control deficit?Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(9), 2044–2052. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.04.031
12.
KnutsonL., & ClarkD. (1991). Orthotic devices for ambulation in children with cerebral palsy and myelomeningocele. Physical Therapy, 71(12), 60–947.
13.
MorrisC., BowersR., RossK., StevensP., & PhillipsD. (2011). Orthotic management of cerebral palsy: Recommendations from a consensus conference. NeuroRehabilitation, 28(1), 37–46. doi: 10.3233/NRE-2011-0630
14.
NetoH., CollangeGrecco, L., GalliM., & SantosC. (2012). Comparison of articulated and rigid ankle-foot orthoses in children with cerebral palsy: A systematic review. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 24(4), 308–312. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0b013e318268a4fc
15.
NovacheckT. F. (2008). Pediatric Orthosis. In HsuJ. D., MichaelJ. W., FiskJ. R., (Eds.). AAOS atlas of orthoses and assistive devices (pp. 487–500). Philadelphia, PA: Mosby/Elsevier.
16.
NovakI., McIntyreS., MorganC., CampbellL., DarkL., MortonN., StumblesE., WilsonS. A., & GoldsmithS. (2013). A systematic review of interventions for children with cerebral palsy: State of the evidence. Child Neurology, 55(10), 885–910. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12246
17.
ÕunpuuS., GageJ., & DavisR. (1991). Three-dimensional lower extremity joint kinetics in normal pediatric gait. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 11(3), 341–349.
18.
ÕunpuuS., BellK., DavisR., & DeLucaP. (1996). An evaluation of the posterior leaf spring orthosis using joint kinematics and kinetics. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 16(3), 378–384.
19.
PetrarcaM., RossiS., BolleaL., CappaP., & CastelliE. (2011). Patient-centered rehabilitation, three years of gait recovery in a child affected by hemiplegia: Case report. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 47(1), 35–47.
20.
RadtkaS., SkinnerS., DixonD., & JohansonM. (1997). A comparison of gait with solid, dynamic, and no ankle-foot orthoses in children with spastic cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy, 77(4), 395–409.
21.
RethlefsenS., KayR., DennisS., ForsteinM., & ToloV. (1999). The effects of fixed and articulated ankle-foot orthoses on gait patterns in subjects with cerebral palsy. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 19(4), 470–474.
22.
RichardsC., & MalouinF. (2013). Cerebral palsy: Definition, assessment and rehabilitation. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 111, 183–195. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-52891-9.00018-X
23.
RidgewellE., DobsonF., BachT., & BakerR. (2010). A systematic review to determine best practice reporting guidelines for AFO interventions in studies involving children with cerebral palsy. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 34(2), 129–145. doi: 10.3109/03093641003674288
24.
RiesA., NovacheckT., & SchwartzM. (2015). The efficacy of ankle-foot orthoses on improving the gait of children with diplegic cerebral palsy: A multiple outcome analysis. Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 7(9), 922–929. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.03.005
25.
RomkesJ., & BrunnerR. (2002). Comparison of a dynamic and a hinged ankle-foot orthosis by gait analysis in patients with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Posture, 15(1), 18–24.
26.
WolfS., AlimusajM., RettigO., & DoderleinL. (2008). Dynamic assist by carbon fiber spring AFOs for patients with myelomeningocele. Posture, 28(1), 175–177.
27.
WrenT., RethlefsenS., & KayR. (2005). Prevalence of specific gait abnormalities in children with cerebral palsy: Influence of cerebral palsy subtype, age, and previous surgery. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 25(1), 79–83.
