A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Using 3-Dimensional Motion Analysis to Optimize Treatment Planning for a Patient With Dropfoot: Case Report. | LitMetric

Objective: This study demonstrated the use of computerized motion analysis to assist in evidence-based clinical decision-making.

Case Description: A 15-year-old girl who had right hemiparesis after a stroke was referred for 3-dimensional computerized motion analysis to determine the effect of 3 devices intended to control her dropfoot and to assist in developing a treatment plan. Four conditions were tested and compared: barefoot, lateral support ankle brace, functional electrical stimulation (FES) device, and dropfoot cuff.

Results: Kinematics showed the right ankle had significant dropfoot during swing phase (32.7 degrees of plantarflexion at terminal swing) in barefoot. The lateral support ankle brace, FES device, and dropfoot cuff reduced terminal swing plantarflexion to 27.2 degrees, 17.6 degrees, and 15.3 degrees, respectively, though ankle kinematics remained abnormal because of inadequate dorsiflexion. Improvements in gait variable score with FES (-8.2 degrees) or dropfoot cuff (-8.7 degrees) were significantly more than that with the lateral support brace (-2.2 degrees), and the difference in gait variable score between FES and dropfoot cuff was insignificant. Compared with the barefoot condition, the lateral support brace condition did not show a clinically significant difference in gait profile score; however, the gait profile scores of both FES and dropfoot cuff conditions showed clinically significant improvement (-1.7 degrees and -2.1 degrees, respectively).

Conclusion: Objective data delineated subtle changes among 3 devices and led to the recommendation to discontinue the lateral support ankle brace, continue using her night ankle-foot orthosis and FES device, with the dropfoot cuff as a backup when she feels leg fatigue or skin irritation, and consider serial casting or surgical calf lengthening.

Impact: Computerized motion analysis provides quantitative evaluation of subtle differences in the effect of braces with different designs, which are hard for the human eye to discern. The objective data inform and validate treatment decision-making. The recommendations were made as a result of evidence-based practice.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab003DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lateral support
20
dropfoot cuff
20
motion analysis
16
computerized motion
12
support ankle
12
ankle brace
12
fes device
12
device dropfoot
12
dropfoot
9
compared barefoot
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!