Evaluation of Dual Channel vs. Single Channel FES for Dropfoot
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02494323|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : July 10, 2015
Results First Posted : April 1, 2016
Last Update Posted : August 3, 2016
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Dropfoot||Device: Functional Electrical Stimulation||Not Applicable|
Twenty subjects will be stimulated with a single channel electrode, the Quick Fit Electrode. The values of stimulation will be recorded, as well as ankle movement (balanced Dorsiflexion, inverted or everted Dorsiflexion). Subjects will fill up a Benefit, Satisfaction, Willingness to continue (BSW) form. Next, subjects will be fitted with a segmented Electrode that enables both single and dual channel. Four configurations of current will be compared during sitting position and during gait. The first configuration (A) is segmented electrode single channel stimulation, the second configuration (B) is two currents running in parallel. The first medial channel stimulates the deep branch of common peroneal nerve (dorsiflexion/inversion) and the second lateral current stimulates the superficial peroneal nerve (eversion). In the third configuration (C), channels run diagonally. The medial channel runs between the upper medial electrode and the lateral lower electrode (dorsiflexion/inversion). The lateral channel runs between the lateral upper electrode and the medial lower electrode (eversion). The forth configuration (D) includes a common lower electrode; when it is connected to the upper medial electrode it functions as a medial channel (dorsiflexion/inversion); when it is connected to the upper lateral electrode, it functions as the lateral channel (dorsiflexion/eversion). The subjects will be asked to answer 3 questions after trying each configuration. 1. Thinking of the current system you use, did this test system provide any difference in the way the stimulation feels compared to your existing system? Yes No/Cannot tell any difference. 2. Thinking of the current system you use, did this test system provide any difference in what you think of as the 'quality' of stimulation you are used to compared to your existing system? Yes No/Cannot tell any difference. 3. Thinking of the current system you use, did this test system provide any difference in your ability to walk compared to your existing system? Yes No/Cannot tell any difference After all three dual channel configurations have been tested, subjects will be asked Question 4: Thinking of the last three test systems you used today, which test system do you believe was best among the three? B, C or D Subjects will be asked to grade their satisfaction with the one dual channel system they believe is best using the Benefit, Satisfaction, Willingness to Continue (BSW) questionnaire.
After completing evaluation of the first twenty subjects, a re-evaluation of ten subjects will take place. The anode/cathode electrodes will be re-positioned so the cathodes will be located at the upper part of the cuff and the anodes will be located at the lower part of the cuff. This re-evaluation is needed, since in the first evaluation there was an inconsistency in the anode/cathode positioning in the right and left FES cuffs. Stimulation will be given while sitting and during 2 minutes walk. Ankle movement and stimulation intensity will be recorded and compared to the input received in the initial evaluation of the ten subjects.
Fifty additional subjects were recruited to evaluate the performence of the common anode configuration (configuration D) and compare it to the QFE. configuration D was chosen because it showed an advantage over the other dual channel configurations. Same procedure will take place in order to compare the performance of the Segmented Electrode (configuration D) and the QFE. In addition, ambulation tests will be performed: 2mwt and 10 meter walk test. Gait velocity achieved when using each electrode will be compared to each other and also compared to gait velocity achieved when walking with no stimulation.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||70 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Single Group Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||The Evaluation of Dual Channel vs Single Channel FES for Dropfoot|
|Study Start Date :||March 2015|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||June 2015|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||January 2016|
Experimental: Functional Electrical Stimulation
Dual channel stimulation of the peroneal nerve to improve dropfoot
Device: Functional Electrical Stimulation
Single channel and dual channel FES for balanced dorsiflexion for patients with dropfoot
Other Name: Segmented Electrode, Novus System
- Ankle Movement as Good as or Better With the Segmented Electrode as With the QFE [ Time Frame: 7 months ]Subjects were fitted with the L300 Cuff that houses the single channel QFE and then the modified cuff that houses the dual channel segmented electrode. Subjects were stimulated first sitting and then after optimal ankle elevation was achieved, they walked with the stimulation. The clinician documented ankle movement on a 5 point scale: 1-inverted dorsiflexion, 2-slightly inverted dorsiflexion, 3-neutral dorsiflexion,4- slightly everted dorsiflexion, 5- everted dorsiflexion. The clinician documented the number of subjects who achieved each movement with each electrode according to the 5 point scale.
- Benefit Satisfaction Willingness to Continue (BSW) Questionnaire [ Time Frame: 7 months ]Number of subjects who benefited or not benefited from the dual channel electrode was counted, number of patients who were satisfied or not satisfied with the dual channel electrode was counted, number of subjects who were willing to continue or who were unwilling to continue with the dual channel electrode was counted
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02494323
|Hod HAsharon, Israel|
|Study Director:||Bella Kuchuk||R&D Clinician|