Accepted Manuscript Effects of an Anterior Ankle-Foot Orthosis on Walking Mobility in Stroke Patients: Get Up and Go and Stair Walking Chiung-Ling Chen, PhD, OT Ya-Ling Teng, MA, OTR Shu-Zon Lou, PhD Hsin-Yi Chang, MS, OT Fen-Fen Chen, PhD Kwok-Tak Yeung, MA, OTR PII:
S0003-9993(14)00936-8
DOI:
10.1016/j.apmr.2014.07.408
Reference:
YAPMR 55925
To appear in:
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Received Date: 3 May 2014 Revised Date:
27 June 2014
Accepted Date: 19 July 2014
Please cite this article as: Chen C-L, Teng Y-L, Lou S-Z, Chang H-Y, Chen F-F, Yeung K-T, Effects of an Anterior Ankle-Foot Orthosis on Walking Mobility in Stroke Patients: Get Up and Go and Stair Walking, ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION (2014), doi: 10.1016/ j.apmr.2014.07.408. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Running head: Effects of Anterior Ankle-Foot Orthosis on Walking Mobility
Effects of an Anterior Ankle-Foot Orthosis on Walking Mobility in Stroke Patients: Get Up and Go and Stair Walking
RI PT
Chiung-Ling Chen1,2, PhD, OT, Ya-Ling Teng1,2, MA, OTR, Shu-Zon Lou1,2, PhD, Hsin-Yi Chang3, MS, OT, Fen-Fen Chen1,2, PhD, Kwok-Tak Yeung1,2*, MA, OTR School of Occupational Therapy, Chung Shan Medical University
2
Occupational Therapy Room, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital
3
Room of Occupational Therapy, Department of Rehabilitation, Cishan Hospital
M AN U
SC
1
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the patients who participated in the study.
TE D
Conflict of interest statement
We certify that no party having a direct interest in the results of the
EP
research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on us or on
AC C
any organization with which we are associated.
*Corresponding author Kwok-Tak Yeung, School of Occupational Therapy, Chung Shan Medical University Occupational Therapy Room, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT No. 110, Sec. 1, Jianguo N. Rd., Taichung City 40201, Taiwan. Cell phone number: +886-930765963
RI PT
Business telephone number: +886-4-24730022 ext 12354 Fax number: +886-4-23248181
SC
E-mail address:
[email protected] M AN U
Word count: 2654
AC C
EP
TE D
Number of figure and table: One figure and one table
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
Effects of an Anterior Ankle-Foot Orthosis on Walking Mobility in
2
Stroke Patients: Get Up and Go and Stair Walking
3
Abstract
5
Objective: To examine the effects of an anterior ankle-foot orthosis (AAFO) on
6
walking mobility in stroke patients.
7
Design: Cross-sectional and repeated-measures study design.
8
Setting: A university’s neurological rehabilitation department in Taiwan.
9
Participants: Twenty one ambulant stroke patients.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
4
Interventions: Not applicable.
11
Main Outcome Measures: Walking mobility was measured by the Timed Up and Go
12
(TUG) test and the Timed Up and Down Stairs (TUDS) test. The paired t-test was
13
used to determine the difference between the mobility performances measured with
14
and without the AAFO.
15
Results: There were significant differences between mobility performances with and
16
without an AAFO in the TUG test (p = 0.038) and the TUDS test (p = 0.000).
17
Conclusions: This study supports the effect of an AAFO on walking mobility in
18
stroke patients. The findings demonstrate that the stroke patients wearing an AAFO
19
may ambulate with greater speed and safety on level surfaces and stairs.
EP
AC C
20
TE D
10
21
Keywords
22
Foot orthosis; Walking; Stroke
23 24
List of abbreviations
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT AAFO: anterior ankle-foot orthosis
2
PAFOs: posterior ankle-foot orthoses
3
TUG: timed up and go
4
TUDS: timed up and down stairs
5
BBS: Berg Balance Scale
RI PT
1
6
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
7
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
Mobility refers to the ability to independently and safely move from one place
2
to another1. Walking mobility is defined as one
3
incorporates many types of tasks. Walking mobility tasks include walking initiation,
4
walking on smooth and rough surfaces, and walking up and down stairs. These tasks
5
require both static and dynamic balance.2 Strokes often cause deficits in balance and
6
mobility, including increases in static postural sway,3,4 diminished weight-bearing on
7
the paretic limb while standing, asymmetrical weight-shifting ability between the two
8
limbs,5 and overall reductions in the range of weight-shifting.6 At least 70% of stroke
9
patients are able to regain walking ability, but they generally walk more slowly than
SC
RI PT
s capacity for ambulation, which
healthy individuals.7 The gait characteristics of stroke patients include a lower
11
cadence, shorter steps and stride length, a shorter stance phase and prolonged swing
12
phase on the affected side, a prolonged double-support phase,8,9 inadequate propulsion,
13
and an increase in the energy required for walking compared with healthy
14
individuals.10 These changes in the gait of stroke patients increase their risk of falling.
15
Studies have reported that stroke patients with poor balance experience a high
16
recurrence of falls.11 Self-confidence in performing tasks without falling was
17
correlated significantly with observer-based balance and gait speed.12 Subsequent
18
problems caused by falls are numerous, including physical injuries, immobility,
19
psychosocial trauma, and increased costs of care.13 Therefore, improving balance and
20
mobility to prevent falls is an important goal of post-stroke rehabilitation.
21
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
10
22
Walking up and down stairs is similar to walking that involves reciprocal
23
movements of the legs by alternating the stance and swing phases. When walking up
24
stairs, the knee and ankle joints must produce concentric contractions for forward and
25
upward progression. The greatest stability is demanded during the single-leg stance
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT phase, when the swing leg is advancing toward the next step. Walking down stairs
2
requires the generation of eccentric contractions of the hip, knee, and ankle extensors
3
and control of the position of the body in response to the accelerating force of
4
gravity.1 In addition, factors that affect performance in walking up and down stairs
5
include ankle joint angles (such as the dorsiflexion flexibility of the ankle)14 and
6
visual detection (such as ambient lighting and stair edge contrast).15,16 Thus, walking
7
up or down stairs is more challenging than walking on a level surface.
RI PT
1
9
SC
8
In Taiwan, occupational therapists often provide anterior ankle-foot-orthosis (AAFO) for stroke patients to improve their balance and mobility. The advantages of
11
the AAFO are that it is fabricated quickly, easily and custom fit; provides excellent
12
foot fixation, toe pickup and maximal medio-lateral stability; and allows normal heel
13
contact on the ground and thus can be worn barefoot indoors as well as with shoes.17
14
In addition, the AAFO is formed at an angle of dorsiflexion, approximately 5-10
15
degrees. Clinically, a dorsiflexion of 5-10 degrees will facilitate the knee into an
16
appropriate flexion that prevents a tendency toward recurvation during stance18 and
17
creates satisfactory toe pickup during swing.
19
TE D
EP
AC C
18
M AN U
10
Previous studies have investigated the effects of AAFO on the walking ability
20
and gait pattern of stroke patients.19-21 Wong et al.21 first revealed that gait pattern did
21
improve by using the AAFO, especially with respect to the foot pressure distribution.
22
Chen et al.19 used a Computer Dyno Graphy system to examine the effects of AAFO
23
on hemiplegic gait, and the authors concluded that wearing AAFO led to faster
24
walking speed and increased cadence, but no significant difference in gait symmetry
25
was found. Hung et al.20 examined chronic stroke patients who wore AAFO for at
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT least five months and determined that the AAFO improved functional walking ability
2
significantly. The authors also indicated that the use of AAFO was better suited for
3
younger patients and those with diminished walking ability. Only one study reported
4
the effect on functional ambulation using the Timed Up and Go (TUG)20; no one has
5
examined the effects of AAFO on the stair walking ability of stroke patients.
6
Therefore, the TUG and Timed Up and Down Stairs (TUDS) tests were used in this
7
study to explore the effects of AAFOs on get up and go and stair walking mobility in
8
stroke patients.
SC
RI PT
1
9
11
Methods
12
Participants
M AN U
10
13
TE D
14
Between June 2012 and September 2012, 254 stroke patients who were
16
undergoing therapy at the university’s neurological rehabilitation department were
17
selected to participate in this study. The criteria for selection were as follows:
18
1.
20
Unilateral hemiplegic stroke patients capable of following simple verbal
AC C
19
EP
15
instructions 2.
Ability to walk on a level surface and to walk up and down stairs independently
21
or under supervision with or without assistive devices (handrail or cane) and
22
without wearing an AAFO
23 24 25
3.
No systemic or local medical problems, other than stroke, that might affect walking mobility Four exclusion criteria were established: 1) clinically significant visual
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
impairment; 2) unilateral neglect; 3) aphasia; and 4) the ability to voluntarily dorsiflex
2
ankle against gravity. The Medical Research Council (MRC) scale for muscle strength
3
grading was used as a screen test to exclude the patients whose affected ankle
4
doesiflexor was MRC grade 3 or above on account of that the AAFO is indicated for
5
weakness or paralysis of ankle dorsiflexor.
RI PT
1
6
Of these 254 stroke patients, 125 patients were found eligible for study
8
enrollment. One hundred patients were excluded for having visual impairment,
9
unilateral neglect, aphasia, or their affected ankle doesiflexors were MRC grade 3 or
10
above. After an introduction and explanation of the study, potential participants were
11
asked whether or not they wanted to participate. Two potential participants refused to
12
participate in the study. During the TUDS test, 2 additional patients were excluded for
13
safety concerns. A total of 21 patients participated in the study.
M AN U
SC
7
15
18 19
EP
17
Outcome measures
AC C
16
TE D
14
The TUG test was used to evaluate basic mobility. Participants were asked to sit
20
in a standard chair (seat height of approximately 46 cm; arm rest height of
21
approximately 65 cm), get up and walk three meters, turn around, walk back to the
22
chair, and sit down again. We recorded the number of seconds each participant
23
required to complete this task. This test possesses a high degree of reliability and
24
validity. 22 The TUDS test included walking up and down a staircase, which had a total
25
of 12 steps, each with a height and depth of 16 cm and 26 cm, respectively. The
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT participants could use the handrails or a cane and any method (e.g., step-over-step or
2
step-by-step patterns) to complete the test. The time required by each participant to
3
walk up and down the 12-step staircase was recorded, and the sum of all of the times
4
was determined. To ensure that the patients did not become fatigued, each test was
5
conducted only once.
RI PT
1
6 7 Procedures
SC
8 9
11
M AN U
10
Before the experiment, all participants provided informed consent, and the protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Information about clinical
13
and demographic characteristics was obtained through interviews with the patients
14
and from their medical charts, i.e., gender, age, when the stroke occurred, the type of
15
stroke, and the duration of AAFO usage. Subsequently, the Brunnstrom motor
16
recovery stage of lower extremity, inversor or plantar flexor spasticity (using the
17
Modified Ashworth Scale), and the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) scores of each
18
participant were evaluated. The BBS was used to evaluate the participants
19
without wearing an AAFO. This scale includes 14 items on a 5-point scale (0-4
20
points), with a maximum score of 56 points. Higher scores indicate better balance,
21
and research results have indicated that the BBS has a high degree of reliability and
22
validity.23,24
balance
AC C
EP
TE D
12
23 24 25
Participants who already had an AAFO made by a therapist were allowed to use the device for testing. If a participant did not have an AAFO, one was fabricated by
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
the participant’s occupational therapist.
2 3
The participants were requested to complete the TUG and TUDS tests. During the testing process, two individuals stood by the participants, one on either side, to
5
prevent falls. The sequence of measuring the participants with and without AAFO was
6
randomized. The participants were allowed an appropriate amount of rest, generally
7
five to ten minutes, between each test, so the total testing time ranged from 30
8
minutes to an hour.
SC
RI PT
4
9
11
M AN U
10 Data analyses
12 13
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographic information of each
TE D
14
participant. A paired t test was used to examine the difference between the time
16
required to complete the TUG and TUDS tests with and without an AAFO, with a
17
level of significance of α = 0.05. SPSS statistical software, Version 16.0, was used for
18
the analyses.
20 21
AC C
19
EP
15
Results
22 23 24 25
The characteristics of participants are presented in Table 1. The mean age of the participants was 58.2±12.1 years (range, 39 to 80 years), the mean time post-onset
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
was 25.3±27.7 months (range, 2 to 94 months), and the mean BBS score was 43.4±7.8
2
(range, 27 to 54).
3 4
The average time required for the TUG test with an AAFO was 40.2 ± 19.1 seconds, whereas the average time required without an AAFO was 49.1 ± 30.4
6
seconds. Therefore, wearing AAFOs reduced the test completion time by 18%. The
7
paired t-test indicated that AAFO usage significantly improved the walking mobility
8
of the participants as they were undergoing the TUG test (p = 0.038) (Figure 1).
SC
RI PT
5
9
The average time required for the TUDS test with an AAFO was 65.9 ± 34.1
11
seconds, whereas the average time required without an AAFO use was 83.6 ± 45.4
12
seconds. Therefore, wearing an AAFO reduced the test completion time by 21%. The
13
paired t-test demonstrated that AAFO usage significantly improved the walking
14
mobility of participants as they were undergoing the TUDS test (p = 0.000) (Figure
15
1).
TE D
M AN U
10
17
19 20 21
Discussion
AC C
18
EP
16
The findings of this study were that wearing an AAFO significantly improved
22
walking mobility as measured by the TUG and TUDS tests. Participants were required
23
to complete the walking up-and-down stairs test, which requires a high level of
24
balance. The lowest BBS score of the participants in this study was 27, and the
25
average BBS score was 43.4. These results are consistent with the interpretation of
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
BBS scores suggested by the previous study, which indicated that assisted walking
2
requires at least a cutoff score of 21.25 In addition, the stroke patients with an average
3
BBS score of 43.4 who participated in this study possessed relatively high balance.
4 The results of this study indicated that wearing an AAFO reduced the
6
completion time in the TUG and TUDS tests by 18% and 21%, respectively. The
7
beneficial effects of the AAFO on walking mobility may be due to the following three
8
reasons.
SC
RI PT
5
9
First, the motor tasks included in these two tests (e.g., standing up from sitting
M AN U
10
and stair walking) require relatively large amounts of ankle dorsiflexion while the
12
majority of the participants exhibited drop foot or plantar flexor hypertonicity, which
13
profoundly influences the participants’ performance. Because the AAFO fixes the
14
ankle joint at approximately 5-10 degrees of dorsiflexion to provide joint stability and
15
toe clearance, the adverse effects of drop foot or plantar flexor hypertonicity are
16
avoided. Bonnyaud et al.26 also demonstrated that the strength of the ankle
17
dorsiflexors were related to the TUDS test performance and suggested that using of an
18
AFO to compensate for the weakness of ankle dorsiflexors.
20
EP
AC C
19
TE D
11
Second, the ability to shift body weight onto the paretic limb while standing has
21
been shown to be correlated with walking performance.27 Similar findings were
22
obtained in the study by Bonnyaud et al., who found that the closer the percentage of
23
the single-support phase of the affected leg is to normal values (meaning a greater
24
degree of weight borne by the affected limb), the faster the subjects’ performance was
25
on the TUDS test.26 Research has suggested that stroke patients exhibited an
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT improved ability to shift weight and enhanced weight bearing on the affected side
2
after weight-shifting while wearing an AAFO.28 In addition, as part of the research
3
project, a previous study have also revealed that the stroke subjects wearing an AAFO
4
could improve the maximal distance of weight shifting toward the affected side and
5
increase the affected weight-bearing percentage after weight shifting.29 Therefore, in
6
this study, the improvement in the performance of the participants on the TUG and
7
TUDS test when they used AAFOs possibly could be attributed to the improved
8
weight-shifting ability and weight-bearing capability of the affected side.
SC
RI PT
1
9
Third, the subjective perception of patients while wearing an AAFO affects the
M AN U
10
speed at which they can walk up or down stairs. The postural threat condition may
12
increase patients’ anxiety and the fear of falling or anxiety regarding the potential
13
consequences of a possible fall can influence the construct of the central set or the
14
preparation for a motor response. Anxiety-mediating modifications, which include
15
reduced gait velocity and stabilization of the head, may be used to help prevent
16
postural instability.30 During the testing process, most of the participants reported that
17
AAFO usage improved their confidence about walking and reduced the fear of falling,
18
which led to improved performance. Furthermore, four participants who typically did
19
not wear an AAFO did so while outside their homes because they described that
20
walking outside poses a greater challenge, such as walking on uneven surfaces.
22
EP
AC C
21
TE D
11
The results of this study are consistent with the findings of the previous studies
23
that stroke patients exhibited improved walking ability in the TUG and stair test when
24
they were wearing static31 or dynamic32 posterior ankle foot orthoses (PAFOs). The
25
authors of those studies also proposed that the favorable results may be attributed to
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
the patients felt more self-confident31 or a greater sense of postural security was
2
resulted32 when wearing the PAFOs.
3 4
In contrast to the beneficial effects of the AAFO, the AAFO restricts the ankle’s range of motion may negatively affect the performance of stair walking. Because
6
healthy adults typically walk up and down stairs using the step-over-step pattern, the
7
mean value for the maximum sagittal plane motion of the ankle was 27 degrees.33
8
Although wearing a static AFO results in decreased ankle dorsiflexion angles,
9
proximal compensations at the pelvis, hip, and knee occurred, which was not the case
SC
RI PT
5
for the dynamic AFOs.34 Previous research indicated that, for children with spastic
11
hemiplegia, the use of a solid AFO did not impair their ability to walk up and down
12
stairs.35 Furthermore, the majority of stroke patients who were examined in this study
13
completed the TUDS test using the step-by-step pattern. While walking up the stairs,
14
the participant’s healthy leg was raised first due to poor control of the ankle joint in
15
the affected leg, and when walking down stairs, the affected leg was lowered first,
16
both of which required a small degree of ankle dorsiflexion. Therefore, the wearing an
17
AAFO does not interfere with performance of stair walking and, in fact, improves the
18
speed of doing so when walking up or down the stairs by placing both feet on each
19
step of the staircase.
21 22
TE D
EP
AC C
20
M AN U
10
Study limitation
23 24 25
A limitation of this study was that each of the participants was tested only once
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT for each test, so the variability of the data may be greater than it would have been if
2
we had been able to take the average of repeated tests. In a subsequent study, it is our
3
intention to include the use of a motion analysis system to measure the kinematic
4
changes when the AAFO is used for stair walking so that we can provide a more
5
detailed explanation of the participants’ behavioral performance.
6 7
RI PT
1
Previous studies have demonstrated that there was no significant difference in walking speed and gait pattern in hemiplegic patients wearing AAFOs and those
9
wearing PAFOs.21,36 However, Chen et al.37 demonstrated that there were different
SC
8
effects on the rear-foot kinematic change during gait between these two types of
11
AFOs. In this study, we only compared the participants’ walking mobility with an
12
AAFO versus no AAFO. Further studies should compare the performance between
13
anterior and posterior AFO in stroke patients.
M AN U
10
TE D
14 15
18 19
EP
17
Conclusions
AC C
16
The results indicated that the use of an AAFO by stroke patients with affected
20
ankle dorsiflexor weakness or paralysis significantly improved their performance on
21
the TUG test and the TUDS test. The stroke patients may ambulate with greater speed
22
and safety on level surfaces and stairs when wearing an AAFO.
23
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1 2
References
3 1.
5 6
Shumway-Cook A, Wollacott MH. Motor control: translating reasearch into clinical practice. 4th ed.: Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wikins; 2012.
2.
RI PT
4
Shubert TE, Schrodt LA, Mercer VS, Busby-Whitehead J, Giuliani CA. Are scores on balance screening tests associated with mobility in older adults? J
8
Geriatr Phys Ther 2006;29:35-9. 3.
10 11
elderly with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:1095-101. 4.
12 13
Corriveau H, Hebert R, Raiche M, Prince F. Evaluation of postural stability in the
M AN U
9
SC
7
Peurala SH, Kononen P, Pitkanen K, Sivenius J, Tarkka IM. Postural instability in patients with chronic stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2007;25:101-8.
5.
Eng JJ, Chu KS. Reliability and comparison of weight-bearing ability during standing tasks for individuals with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
15
2002;83:1138-44. 6.
17 18
Turnbull GI, Charteris J, Wall JC. Deficiencies in standing weight shifts by ambulant hemiplegic subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:356-62.
7.
EP
16
TE D
14
von Schroeder HP, Coutts RD, Lyden PD, Billings E, Jr., Nickel VL. Gait parameters following stroke: a practical assessment. J Rehabil Res Dev
20
1995;32:25-31.
21
8.
AC C
19
Chou SW, Wong AM, Leong CP, Hong WS, Tang FT, Lin TH. Postural control
22
during sit-to stand and gait in stroke patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil
23
2003;82:42-7.
24
9.
Titianova EB, Pitkänen K, Pääkkönen A, Sivenius J, Tarkka IM. Gait
25
characteristics and functional ambulation profile in patients with chronic
26
unilateral stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003;82:778-86.
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
10. Chen G, Patten C, Kothari DH, Zajac FE. Gait differences between individuals
2
with post-stroke hemiparesis and non-disabled controls at matched speeds. Gait
3
Posture 2005;22:51-6. 11. Mackintosh SF, Hill KD, Dodd KJ, Goldie PA, Culham EG. Balance score and a
5
history of falls in hospital predict recurrent falls in the 6 months following stroke
6
rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:1583-9.
10 11 12 13 14
SC
9
in patients with stroke. Physiother Theory Pract 2005;21:113-20.
13. Tideiksaar R. Falls in Older People: Prevention & Management. 4th ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Health Professions Press, Inc; 2010.
M AN U
8
12. Rosen E, Sunnerhagen KS, Kreuter M. Fear of falling, balance, and gait velocity
14. Moseley AM, Crosbie J, Adams R. High- and low-ankle flexibility and motor task performance. Gait Posture 2003;18:73-80.
15. Hamel KA, Okita N, Higginson JS, Cavanagh PR. Foot clearance during stair descent: effects of age and illumination. Gait Posture 2005;21:135-40.
TE D
7
RI PT
4
16. Zietz D, Johannsen L, Hollands M. Stepping characteristics and Centre of Mass
16
control during stair descent: Effects of age, fall risk and visual factors. Gait
17
Posture 2011;34:279-84.
19 20
17. Wu SH. An anterior direct molding ankle-foot orthosis. J Occup Ther Assoc ROC
AC C
18
EP
15
1992;10:75-81.
18. Silver-Thorn B, Herrmann A, Current T, McGuire J. Effect of ankle orientation
21
on heel loading and knee stability for post-stroke individuals wearing ankle-foot
22
orthoses. Prosthet Orthot Int 2011;35:150-62.
23 24 25
19. Chen CL, Yeung KT, Wu SH, Chiang PY. Effects of an anterior ankle-foot orthosis on hemiplegic gait. J Rehabil Med Assoc ROC 1998;26:119-27. 20. Hung JW, Chen PC, Yu MY, Hsieh YW. Long-term effect of an anterior
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
ankle-foot orthosis on functional walking ability of chronic stroke patients. Am J
2
Phys Med Rehabil 2011;90:8-16.
4 5
21. Wong AM, Tang FT, Wu SH, Chen CM. Clinical trial of a low-temperature plastic anterior ankle foot orthosis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1992;71:41-3. 22. Hayes KW, Johnson ME. Measures of adult general performance tests: The Berg
RI PT
3
Balance Scale, Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), Gait Velocity, Physical Performance
7
Test (PPT), Timed Chair Stand Test, Timed Up and Go, and Tinetti
8
Performance‐Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA). Arthritis Care Res
9
2003;49:S28-S42.
23. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. The Balance Scale: reliability
M AN U
10
SC
6
11
assessment with elderly residents and patients with an acute stroke. Scand J
12
Rehabil Med 1995;27:27-36.
15 16 17
elderly: validation of an instrument. Can J Public Health 1992;83 Suppl 2:S7-11.
TE D
14
24. Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee SL, Williams JI, Maki B. Measuring balance in the
25. Berg K. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can 1989;41:304-11. 26. Bonnyaud C, Zory R, Pradon D, Vuillerme N, Roche N. Clinical and
EP
13
biomechanical factors which predict Timed Up and Down Stairs test performance
19
in hemiparetic patients. Gait Posture 2013;38:466-70.
AC C
18
20
27. Dettmann MA, Linder MT, Sepic SB. Relationships among walking performance,
21
postural stability, and functional assessments of the hemiplegic patient. Am J
22
Phys Med Rehabil 1987;66:77-90.
23
28. Chen CL, Yeung KT, Wang CH, Chu HT, Yeh CY. Anterior ankle-foot orthosis
24
effects on postural stability in hemiplegic patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
25
1999;80:1587-92.
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
29. Chang HY, Lou SZ, Teng YL, Min-Chi, Chiu MC, Chen CL. Effects of anterior
2
ankle-foot orthosis on standing balance of stroke patients. J Occup Ther Assoc ROC
3
2013;31(2):209-225.
5 6
30. Brown LA, Gage WH, Polych MA, Sleik RJ, Winder TR. Central set influences on gait. Exp Brain Res 2002;145:286-96.
RI PT
4
31. de Wit DC, Buurke JH, Nijlant JM, Ijzerman MJ, Hermens HJ. The effect of an ankle-foot orthosis on walking ability in chronic stroke patients: a randomized
8
controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2004;18:550-7.
9
SC
7
32. Suat E, Fatma U, NilgÜn B. The effects of dynamic ankle-foot orthoses on functional ambulation activities, weight bearing and spatio-temporal
11
characteristics of hemiparetic gait. Disabil Rehabil 2011;33:2605-11.
12
M AN U
10
33. Andriacchi TP, Andersson GB, Fermier RW, Stern D, Galante JO. A study of lower-limb mechanics during stair-climbing. J Bone Joint Surg Am
14
1980;62:749-57.
TE D
13
34. Radtka SA, Oliveira GB, Lindstrom KE, Borders MD. The kinematic and kinetic
16
effects of solid, hinged, and no ankle–foot orthoses on stair locomotion in healthy
17
adults. Gait Posture 2006;24:211-8.
18
EP
15
35. Sienko Thomas S, Buckon CE, Jakobson-Huston S, Sussman MD, Aiona MD. Stair locomotion in children with spastic hemiplegia: the impact of three different
20
ankle foot orthosis (AFOs) configurations. Gait Posture 2002;16:180-7.
21
AC C
19
36. Park JH, Chun MH, Ahn JS, Yu JY, Kang SH. Comparison of gait analysis
22
between anterior and posterior ankle foot orthosis in hemiplegic patients. Am J
23
Phys Med Rehabil 2009;88:630-4.
24
37. Chen CC, Hong WH, Wang CM, Chen CK, Wu KP, Kang CF et al. Kinematic
25
features of rear-foot motion using anterior and posterior ankle-foot orthoses in
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
stroke patients with hemiplegic gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:1862-8.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
2
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
Figure Legends
2
Figure 1. Comparisons of walking mobility performance with and without an AAFO.
3
(*p