Dual-channel functional electrical stimulation improvements in speed-based gait classifications

Figures & data

Figure 1 The Ness L300Plus system.

Table 1 Subject characteristics

Group	Age means ± SD (years)	Gender (F/M)	Years post diagnosis means ± SD	Paretic side (right/left)
A (n = 15)	60.53 ± 14.66	5/10	4.53 ± 4.26	5/10
B (n = 15)	55.07 ± 15.49	6/9	5.48 ± 3.45	11/4
C (n = 6)	54.67 ± 18.54	4/2	12.67 ± 8.71	3/3
Entire group (n = 36)	57.28 ± 15.46	15/21	6.29 ± 5.61	19/17

Notes: Group A, limited household ambulation; group B, limited community ambulation; group C, functional community ambulation.

Table 2 Group means and standard deviations of gait velocity under both conditions at study initiation (T1) and after 6 weeks (T2)

Group	T1		T2
	No stimulation	FES	No stimulation	FES
A (n = 15)	0.30 ± 0.09	0.40 ± 0.14	0.37 ± 0.12	0.49 ± 0.20
B (n = 15)	0.64 ± 0.11	0.70 ± 0.15	0.71 ± 0.21	0.84 ± 0.19
C (n = 6)	0.90 ± 0.11	1.05 ± 0.16	1.07 ± 0.17	1.13 ± 0.22
Entire group (n = 36)	0.54 ± 0.24	0.63 ± 0.27	0.61 ± 0.30	0.74 ± 0.31

Abbreviation: FES, functional electrical stimulation.

Graph 1 Effect of functional electrical stimulation on gait velocity in the three subgroups of ambulation categories.

Table 3 Summary of Tukey-Kramer preplanned comparisons

Group	Orthotic effect T1	Orthotic effect T2	Therapeutic effect	Habituation effect	Over all FES effect
A	0.0006	0.0003	NS (0.4584)	0.0219	0.0003
B	0.0354	<0.0001	NS (0.4257)	0.0002	0.0001
C	0.0007	NS (0.1087)	NS (0.4704)	NS (0.6263)	0.0096
Entire group	<0.001	<0.001	0.001	<0.001	<0.001

Notes: Orthotic effect: T1–T1, no stimulation versus T1 FES; orthotic effect T2–T2, no stimulation versus T2 FES. Therapeutic effect T2 no stimulation versus T1 no stimulation. Habituation effect T2 FES versus T1 FES. Over all FES effect T1 no stimulation versus T2 FES.

Abbreviation: FES, functional electrical stimulation; NS, not statiscally significant.