Modifying ankle foot orthosis stiffness in patients with calf muscle weakness: gait responses on group and individual level.
Ankle foot orthosis
Gait
Muscle weakness
Neuromuscular disease
Rehabilitation
Stiffness
Walking energy cost
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 10 2019
17 10 2019
Historique:
received:
21
01
2019
accepted:
24
09
2019
entrez:
19
10
2019
pubmed:
19
10
2019
medline:
24
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To improve gait, persons with calf muscle weakness can be provided with a dorsal leaf spring ankle foot orthosis (DLS-AFO). These AFOs can store energy during stance and return this energy during push-off, which, in turn, reduces walking energy cost. Simulations indicate that the effect of the DLS-AFO on walking energy cost and gait biomechanics depends on its stiffness and on patient characteristics. We therefore studied the effect of varying DLS-AFO stiffness on reducing walking energy cost, and improving gait biomechanics and AFO generated power in persons with non-spastic calf muscle weakness, and whether the optimal AFO stiffness for maximally reducing walking energy cost varies between persons. Thirty-seven individuals with neuromuscular disorders and non-spastic calf muscle weakness were included. Participants were provided with a DLS-AFO of which the stiffness could be varied. For 5 stiffness configurations (ranging from 2.8 to 6.6 Nm/degree), walking energy cost (J/kg/m) was assessed using a 6-min comfortable walk test. Selected gait parameters, e.g. maximal dorsiflexion angle, ankle power, knee angle, knee moment and AFO generated power, were derived from 3D gait analysis. On group level, no significant effect of DLS-AFO stiffness on reducing walking energy cost was found (p = 0.059, largest difference: 0.14 J/kg/m). The AFO stiffness that reduced energy cost the most varied between persons. The difference in energy cost between the least and most efficient AFO stiffness was on average 10.7%. Regarding gait biomechanics, increasing AFO stiffness significantly decreased maximal ankle dorsiflexion angle (- 1.1 ± 0.1 degrees per 1 Nm/degree, p < 0.001) and peak ankle power (- 0.09 ± 0.01 W/kg, p < 0.001). The reduction in minimal knee angle (- 0.3 ± 0.1 degrees, p = 0.034), and increment in external knee extension moment in stance (- 0.01 ± 0.01 Nm/kg, p = 0.016) were small, although all stiffness' substantially affected knee angle and knee moment compared to shoes only. No effect of stiffness on AFO generated power was found (p = 0.900). The optimal efficient DLS-AFO stiffness varied largely between persons with non-spastic calf muscle weakness. Results indicate this is caused by an individual trade-off between ankle angle and ankle power affected differently by AFO stiffness. We therefore recommend that the AFO stiffness should be individually optimized to best improve gait. Nederlands Trial Register 5170. Registration date: May 7th 2015. http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5170.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To improve gait, persons with calf muscle weakness can be provided with a dorsal leaf spring ankle foot orthosis (DLS-AFO). These AFOs can store energy during stance and return this energy during push-off, which, in turn, reduces walking energy cost. Simulations indicate that the effect of the DLS-AFO on walking energy cost and gait biomechanics depends on its stiffness and on patient characteristics. We therefore studied the effect of varying DLS-AFO stiffness on reducing walking energy cost, and improving gait biomechanics and AFO generated power in persons with non-spastic calf muscle weakness, and whether the optimal AFO stiffness for maximally reducing walking energy cost varies between persons.
METHODS
Thirty-seven individuals with neuromuscular disorders and non-spastic calf muscle weakness were included. Participants were provided with a DLS-AFO of which the stiffness could be varied. For 5 stiffness configurations (ranging from 2.8 to 6.6 Nm/degree), walking energy cost (J/kg/m) was assessed using a 6-min comfortable walk test. Selected gait parameters, e.g. maximal dorsiflexion angle, ankle power, knee angle, knee moment and AFO generated power, were derived from 3D gait analysis.
RESULTS
On group level, no significant effect of DLS-AFO stiffness on reducing walking energy cost was found (p = 0.059, largest difference: 0.14 J/kg/m). The AFO stiffness that reduced energy cost the most varied between persons. The difference in energy cost between the least and most efficient AFO stiffness was on average 10.7%. Regarding gait biomechanics, increasing AFO stiffness significantly decreased maximal ankle dorsiflexion angle (- 1.1 ± 0.1 degrees per 1 Nm/degree, p < 0.001) and peak ankle power (- 0.09 ± 0.01 W/kg, p < 0.001). The reduction in minimal knee angle (- 0.3 ± 0.1 degrees, p = 0.034), and increment in external knee extension moment in stance (- 0.01 ± 0.01 Nm/kg, p = 0.016) were small, although all stiffness' substantially affected knee angle and knee moment compared to shoes only. No effect of stiffness on AFO generated power was found (p = 0.900).
CONCLUSIONS
The optimal efficient DLS-AFO stiffness varied largely between persons with non-spastic calf muscle weakness. Results indicate this is caused by an individual trade-off between ankle angle and ankle power affected differently by AFO stiffness. We therefore recommend that the AFO stiffness should be individually optimized to best improve gait.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
Nederlands Trial Register 5170. Registration date: May 7th 2015. http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5170.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31623670
doi: 10.1186/s12984-019-0600-2
pii: 10.1186/s12984-019-0600-2
pmc: PMC6798503
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
120Références
Science. 2017 Jun 23;356(6344):1280-1284
pubmed: 28642437
Brain Behav. 2014 Jan;4(1):14-20
pubmed: 24653950
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2015 Dec;30(10):1009-25
pubmed: 26586583
Gait Posture. 2013 Mar;37(3):457-9
pubmed: 22921491
Gait Posture. 2014 Jul;40(3):391-8
pubmed: 24947072
Gait Posture. 2011 Apr;33(4):721-3
pubmed: 21376602
Gait Posture. 2016 May;46:104-11
pubmed: 27131186
Neuromuscul Disord. 2011 Jan;21(1):52-7
pubmed: 21074996
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Jan;87(1):136-40
pubmed: 16401452
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007 Aug;49(8):615-20
pubmed: 17635208
J Rehabil Med. 2007 Oct;39(8):651-7
pubmed: 17896058
Gait Posture. 2009 Aug;30(2):144-9
pubmed: 19520576
BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 28;7(2):e013342
pubmed: 28246134
Orthopade. 2007 Aug;36(8):752-6
pubmed: 17639337
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 23;10(11):e0142878
pubmed: 26600039
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Aug;90(8):619-27
pubmed: 21681059
Gait Posture. 2017 Oct;58:146-153
pubmed: 28779720
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014 Sep;29(8):877-84
pubmed: 25193884
J Exp Biol. 2017 Jun 01;220(Pt 11):2082-2095
pubmed: 28341663
J Appl Biomech. 2014 Dec;30(6):728-31
pubmed: 25010887
J R Soc Interface. 2010 Sep 6;7(50):1329-40
pubmed: 20356877
Gait Posture. 2008 Jul;28(1):175-7
pubmed: 18255293
Nature. 2015 Jun 11;522(7555):212-5
pubmed: 25830889
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999 Feb;80(2):136-43
pubmed: 10025486
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011 Nov;26(9):955-61
pubmed: 21723012
J Rehabil Med. 2008 Jul;40(7):529-34
pubmed: 18758669
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007 Jan;49(1):45-8
pubmed: 17209976
Acta Physiol Scand. 1987 Mar;129(3):443-4
pubmed: 3577829
J Biomech. 2001 Nov;34(11):1387-98
pubmed: 11672713