CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02693834Updated Feb 28, 2020Results posted

Effects of Two Different Types of Ankle Foot Orthoses on Gait Outcomes in Patients With Subacute Stroke.

An interventional study of Posterior Leaf spring AFO and Double adjustable AFO in Stroke, CVA and Hemiplegia, sponsored by Texas Woman's University. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-02-28.

Sponsored by Texas Woman's University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
23
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study will be to identify whether patients in the subacute stage of stroke, who demonstrate foot drop, will have better gait outcomes when using a Double Adjustable AFO, or a Posterior Leaf Spring AFO. A secondary purpose will be to determine whether one week of practice significantly changes gait outcomes with either of the AFO conditions.

INCLUSION CRITERIA: Twenty participants over the age of 18, of any gender and ethnicity, diagnosed with first time unilateral stroke, 4 - 20 weeks post-stroke onset, resulting in hemiparesis with foot drop will be recruited for this study.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA:

  1. Not able to receive a double adjustable AFO through their insurance
  2. Unable to follow two steps commands
  3. Unable to ambulate 20 feet with or without assistive device with a minimum level of assistance of contact guard assistance.
  4. Cerebellar Stroke
  5. Inability to ambulate prior to stroke
  6. receiving chemotherapy at the time of study

OUTCOME MEASURES:

  1. Six Minute walk test
  2. Gait Symmetry and Gait velocity measured with GAITRite for self paced velocity walk and fast paced velocity walk.

DATA COLLECTION:

Data will be collected three times over two weeks period.

First Visit:

Demographics, Fugl-Meyer Lower Extremity Assessment of sensorimotor function, Mini Mental State Examination 6MWT and GAITRite measurements using Both types of AFO in a random order. Afterwards participant will be given one type of AFO (randomly selected) to practice walking for a week.

Second Visit: 6MWT and GAITRite measurements using the type of AFO they were practicing with. Then the other type of AFO will be given to practice walking for a week.

Third Visit: 6MWT and GAITRite measurements using the second type of AFO that they were practicing with the week prior. Patient will be asked which type of AFO they prefer to use.

Read the detailed description

Introduction: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability in the world today. About 795,000 people are diagnosed with stroke yearly in the United States. The annual cost of stroke from medical services and disability in our nation is $ 38.6 billion dollars. Gait rehabilitation is an important aspect of neurorehabilitation with focus on attaining the most functional and symmetrical gait to prevent falls from faulty gait mechanics, and to prevent sedentary life styles and associated comorbidities. Ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) are commonly prescribed in patients with stroke to address ankle and knee instabilities and to restore a normal and safe walking pattern.The effectiveness of AFOs on various gait parameters has been reported in patients with stroke, but mostly during the chronic stages of recovery. Systematic analyses have shown that use of various types of ankle foot orthoses improve walking impairments and balance, reduce energy costs, and improve knee and ankle kinematics in people in the chronic stage of stroke recovery, greater than 6 months since the onset of stroke. It is reported that the majority of the gait improvements occur within the first 6 months following the onset of stroke. However, a limited number of studies have investigated the effects of AFOs within six months of stroke onset.

Three reported studies have investigated the effects of using an AFO compared to not using an AFO within 6 months following onset of stroke. Rao et al found that the use of an AFO significantly improved gait velocity, cadence and step length on the affected and unaffected side. Hyun et al. found that using an AFO significantly improved VO2 peak and 6 minute walk test scores . Carse et al showed significant improvement in walking velocity, average step length and cadence with use of AFO. There is only one reported study which looked at the effects of using two different types of AFOs during the subacute stage of stroke, less than 6 months following onset. Results of this study showed that gait speed and knee and ankle control were significantly higher in the Chignon AFO group compared to the polypropylene AFO group. Additionally, participants in the Chignon AFO group had significantly lower spasticity than those in the polypropylene AFO group.

In a recent case series report, investigators observed that using a custom Double Adjustable AFO during the early stages of recovery after stroke resulted in more typical muscle activation patterns, gait endurance and velocity, and near normal symmetry during gait without an assistive device or an AFO in three participants. The use of this type of AFO for gait rehabilitation following stroke in the subacute stages has not been thoroughly studied.

Statement of the Problem Patients with stroke resulting in hemiparesis and foot drop are affected by gait impairments such as poor symmetry, decreased velocity, and decreased endurance. AFOs have been shown to be an effective intervention for improving gait parameters in individuals who are in the chronic stage of stroke recovery. Although, the majority of gait improvements occur within six months of stroke, the effect of early bracing with different types of AFOs on gait outcomes has not been investigated thoroughly.

Purpose of the study:

The purpose of this study will be to identify whether patients in the subacute stage of stroke, who demonstrate foot drop, will have better gait outcomes when using a Double Adjustable AFO, or a Posterior Leaf Spring AFO. A secondary purpose will be to determine whether one week of practice significantly changes gait outcomes with either of the AFO conditions.

Research Hypotheses

The research hypotheses of this study are as follows:

  1. There will be a difference in gait endurance measurements, gait symmetry measurements and gait velocity measurements at baseline when using custom Double Adjustable AFO compared to a PLS AFO in patients in subacute stage of stroke.
  2. There will be a difference in gait endurance measurements, gait symmetry measurements and gait velocity measurements after one week of practice when using custom Double Adjustable AFO compared to a PLS AFO in patients in subacute stage of stroke.
  3. After a week of practice, there will be a difference in gait endurance measurements, gait symmetry measurements and gait velocity measurements compared to baseline measurements, when using either custom Double Adjustable AFO or a PLS AFO in patients in subacute stage of stroke.

Participants Twenty participants over the age of 18, of any gender and ethnicity, diagnosed with first time unilateral stroke, 4 - 20 weeks post-stroke onset, resulting in hemiparesis with foot drop will be recruited. The number of participants was estimated based on previously reported studies. Hyun et al found significant differences in gait endurance measured by 6MWT when using AFO compared to using no AFO with 15 participants in a similar study. In another study by Carse et al, gait velocity and gait symmetry were found to be significantly better with 8 participants.Therefore, for our study, the potential participant number was projected as 20.

Participants will be recruited through a sample of convenience from Baylor Institute of Rehabilitation locations and through word of mouth. The physical therapists at these locations will be given a brief description of the proposed study and will be asked to screen for potential participants. Participants who meet the inclusion criteria and possess none of the exclusion criteria will be asked to volunteer for the study. Each participant will read or be read their rights as human subjects and asked to sign the informed consent approved by the Institutional Review Boards of both Baylor Health Care System and Texas Woman's University prior to enrollment in this study. A Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) will be performed to determine whether the participant has the cognitive ability to sign the informed consent. Participants will be scheduled to do data collection on the day they receive their custom double adjustable AFO at Baylor Institute for Rehabilitation, Frisco location.

Procedures:All measurements will be obtained from each participant during three testing sessions and by only one researcher to avoid inter tester reliability issues. On the first measurement day, the primary investigator will collect demographic data including age, height, weight, leg length measurements on each side, and Fugl-Meyer Lower Extremity Assessment of sensorimotor function. Then the gait outcomes will be measured using one of the two AFO conditions in random order. The participant will select the order of AFO condition by drawing out of a hat. Randomization without replacement will be used. Once the order of AFO wearing has been determined, data will be collected in the randomly selected order. Participants will be allowed to use any type of assistive device of their choice, but the same device will be used for all conditions.

First, the 6MWT will be administered with the participant wearing the first randomized AFO. Participants will be asked to ambulate as far as possible in 6 minutes at a self-selected walking velocity through a well-lit indoor corridor. A five minute seated resting will be provided. Next, gait symmetry and gait velocity measurements will be obtained using the GAITRite system. Participants will be given a practice trial walk prior to beginning of the testing. Participants will be asked to walk at their comfortable self-selected walking velocity along the walkway. They will begin walking three meters from the start of the walkway and will stop walking two meters past the end of the walkway. The beginning and end of the walking area will be marked with red tape for visibility. The verbal instruction will be "Please walk from this red line to that red line at your comfortable speed safely". A second personnel will be walking close to the participant outside of the walkway to ensure safety. After a five minute sitting break, participant will be asked to walk as fast as they can safely. The verbal instruction will be "Please walk from this red line to that red line as fast as you can safely". The GAITRite system will be able to capture both gait symmetry and gait velocity measurements with the same walk. Three trials will be performed of the self-selected velocity walk and fast paced velocity walk. The calculated mean of the three trials will be used for data analysis. After a 10 minute seated rest break, the second AFO condition will be used and measurements will be repeated in the same order described above.

To assess the effects of practice on the gait measures, AFO's will be randomized for practice. Participants will be randomized for which AFO they will wear first. Then the participant will be provided with the selected type of AFO to practice with for the following week using a prescribed wearing schedule. At the end of the one-week practice time, the primary investigator will obtain the same measurements obtained at baseline with the participant wearing the type of AFO that was used to practice the week before. The same testing conditions and order of testing that were used at baseline will be employed. Once measurements are completed, the participant will be provided with the second type of AFO and will be asked to wear for one week using the same prescribed wearing schedule as before. Final measurements will be taken after completion of the one-week practice using the second type of AFO with the same testing conditions and orders. At the conclusion of testing each participant will be asked which AFO they will prefer to use.

Data Analysis : Descriptive statistics will be calculated for all demographic data including age, height, weight, time since onset Fugl Meyer lower extremity assessment score and AFO preference. Differences in gait endurance will be analyzed using a 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA Differences in gait symmetry, and gait velocity between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions will be analyzed using two separate 2x2 repeated measures MANOVA. If assumption of sphericity is not met, Greenhouse-Geisser statistic will be used. An alpha level of .05 will be used to determine significance of differences, with a Bonferroni correction applied as needed to protect against Type I error.

02

Conditions studied

  • Stroke
  • CVA
  • Hemiplegia
  • Hemiparesis
  • Foot Drop

Keywords

  • foot drop
  • Subacute stroke
  • AFO
  • gait symmetry
  • Gait endurance
03

In context

Stroke

7,286 studies on the registry are indexed under Stroke; 2,007 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 23 is below the median of 50 across 5,369 interventional studies indexed under Stroke.

Browse Stroke studies →

Lead sponsor

Texas Woman's University is the lead sponsor of 82 studies on the registry; 5 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Diagnosed with first time unilateral stroke
  • 4 - 20 weeks post-stroke onset
  • resulting in hemiparesis with foot drop

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Inability to receive a double adjustable AFO through their insurance
  • unable to follow two steps commands
  • unable to ambulate 20 feet with or without assistive device with a minimum level of assistance of contact guard assistance
  • diagnosis of cerebellar stroke
  • non ambulatory prior to stroke onset
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Crossover assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
23 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    PLS AFO first then DA AFO

    Participants will be assigned to practice with Posterior Leaf spring AFO for a week, then they will be assigned to practice with Double adjustable AFO for another week.

    Device: Posterior Leaf spring AFO · Device: Double adjustable AFO

  • Experimental
    DA AFO first then PLS AFO

    Participants will be assigned to practice with Double adjustable AFO for a week, then they will be assigned to practice with Posterior Leaf spring AFO for another week

    Device: Posterior Leaf spring AFO · Device: Double adjustable AFO

Interventions

  • DevicePosterior Leaf spring AFO

    Posterior Leaf Spring AFO is an over the shelf polypropylene ankle foot orthosis to assist foot drop.

  • DeviceDouble adjustable AFO

    Double adjustable AFO is a custom AFO with double action metal upright joints

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Gait Endurance

    6 Minute Walk test (6MWT) to assess gait endurance using DA AFO and PLS AFO

    Time frame: at baseline

  2. Gait Endurance

    6MWT to assess gait endurance

    Time frame: 1 week of practice with DA AFO and with PLS AFO randomly

Secondary outcomes

  1. Gait Symmetry

    Using GAITRite for Self Selected Velocity (SSV) and Fast paced Velocity (FPV) walk Step symmetry was calculated as the ratio of affected step length over unaffected step length. Step symmetry was calculated for Self Selected Velocity (SSV) and Fast paced Velocity (FPV)

    Time frame: at baseline,1 week with DA AFO, 1 week with PLS AFO

  2. Gait Velocity SSV and FPV

    using GAITRite for Self selected velocity (SSV)walk and fast paced velocity (FPV) walk

    Time frame: at baseline,1 week with DA AFO, 1 week with PLS AFO

07

Results

Posted Feb 28, 2020
Limitations and caveats
Limited sample size Use of repeated measures design

Participant flow

26 participants were screened for eligibility between March 2016 and October 2017 at two outpatient clinics (Pate Rehab, Dallas and Baylor Institute for Rehabilitation, Frisco) in Dallas, Texas. Out of the 26 screened participants, 3 did not meet inclusion criteria. 23 participants consented for the study.

Baseline Measurement
Participant flow — Baseline Measurement
MilestonePLS AFO First Then DA AFODA AFO First Then PLS AFO
Started1211
Completed1011
Not completed20
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject10
Withdrew: Adverse event10
Week 1 Practice
Participant flow — Week 1 Practice
MilestonePLS AFO First Then DA AFODA AFO First Then PLS AFO
Started1011
Completed1011
Not completed00
Week 2 Practice
Participant flow — Week 2 Practice
MilestonePLS AFO First Then DA AFODA AFO First Then PLS AFO
Started1011
Completed1010
Not completed01
Withdrew: Adverse event01

Outcome measures

PrimaryGait Endurance

6 Minute Walk test (6MWT) to assess gait endurance using DA AFO and PLS AFO

Time frame:
at baseline
Reported as:
Mean · Meter
Gait Endurance
MeterAnkle Foot Orthosis
with DA AFO203.44 ± 101.19
With PLS AFO195.15 ± 85.83
Statistical analysis
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · t-test, 2 sided · p = .293
PrimaryGait Endurance

6MWT to assess gait endurance

Time frame:
1 week of practice with DA AFO and with PLS AFO randomly
Reported as:
Mean · Meter
Gait Endurance
MeterAnkle Foot Orthosis
With DA AFO255.07 ± 99.62
With PLS AFO235.53 ± 88.08
Statistical analysis
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures ANOVA · p = 0.077 (The above value was the interaction between the type of AFO and practice time.)
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures ANOVA · p = .046 (main effect of the type of AFO: F(1, 19) = 4.58, ηp2= .194)
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures ANOVA · p = <.001 (main effect of practice: F(1, 19) = 43.94, ηp2 = .698)
SecondaryGait Symmetry

Using GAITRite for Self Selected Velocity (SSV) and Fast paced Velocity (FPV) walk Step symmetry was calculated as the ratio of affected step length over unaffected step length. Step symmetry was calculated for Self Selected Velocity (SSV) and Fast paced Velocity (FPV)

Time frame:
at baseline,1 week with DA AFO, 1 week with PLS AFO
Reported as:
Mean · ratio
Gait Symmetry
ratioAnkle Foot Orthosis
DA AFO SSV Baseline1.16 ± 0.27
PLS AFO SSV baseline1.18 ± 0.36
DA AFO SSV after 1 week1.12 ± 0.19
PLS AFO SSV after 1 week1.10 ± 0.24
DA AFO FPV Baseline1.18 ± 0.29
PLS AFO FPV Baseline1.22 ± 0.37
DA AFO FPV after 1 week1.16 ± 0.23
PLS AFO FPV after 1 week1.11 ± 0.23
Statistical analysis
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · t-test, 2 sided · p = .688
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures MANOVA · p = .397 (The above p value is for the interaction effects between type of AFO and practice time for gait symmetry at the self selected velocity F(1, 19)= 0.75, ηp2 = .038)
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · Repeated measures MANOVA · p = .950 (Main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at SSV: F(1, 19) = 0.004, ηp2 =.00)
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures MANOVA · p = .111 (The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at self selected velocity F(1, 19) = 2.79, ηp2 = .128)
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · t-test, 2 sided · p = .260
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures MANOVA · p = .113 (The above p value is for the interaction effects between type of AFO and practice time for gait symmetry at fast paced velocity FPV F(1, 19) = 2.76,, ηp2 = .127)
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures MANOVA · p = .918 (The main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 0.01, ηp2 = 0.001)
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures MANOVA · p = .077 (The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 3.50, ηp2 = .155)
SecondaryGait Velocity SSV and FPV

using GAITRite for Self selected velocity (SSV)walk and fast paced velocity (FPV) walk

Time frame:
at baseline,1 week with DA AFO, 1 week with PLS AFO
Reported as:
Mean · meter per sec
Gait Velocity SSV and FPV
meter per secAnkle Foot Orthosis
DA AFO SSV Baseline0.58 ± 0.26
PLS AFO SSV baseline0.58 ± 0.26
DA AFO SSV after 1 week0.70 ± 0.29
PLS AFO SSV after 1 week0.66 ± 0.27
DA AFO FPV Baseline0.80 ± 0.38
PLS AFO FPV Baseline0.78 ± 0.36
DA AFO FPV after 1 week0.95 ± 0.36
PLS AFO FPV after 1 week0.91 ± 0.35
Statistical analysis
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · Repeated measures MANOVA · p = .209 (The above p value is for the interaction effects between the type of AFO and practice time at self selected velocity: F(1, 19) = 1.69, ηp2 = .082)
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures MANOVA · p = .32 (Main effect of AFO on gait velocity at self selected velocity: F(1, 19) = 1.05, ηp2 = .05)
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures MANOVA · p = .001 (Main effect of practice on gait velocity at self selected velocity:F(1, 19) = 14.38, ηp2 = .431)
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures MANOVA · p = .280 (The above p value is for the interaction effects between the type of AFO and practice time at fast paced velocity: F( 1, 19) = 1.24, ηp2 = .61)
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures MANOVA · p = .072 (Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity:FPV F(1, 19) = 3.63, ηp2 =.16)
  • Ankle Foot Orthosis · repeated measures MANOVA · p = <.001 (Main effect of Practice on gait velocity for fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 23.73, ηp2 = .555)

Adverse events

Collected over Adverse event data were collected during the entire study enrollment time, for 3 weeks.. Non-serious events are listed at a 1% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
PLS AFO0/23 (0%)1/23 (4.3%)1/23 (4.3%)
DA AFO0/23 (0%)0/23 (0%)0/23 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventPLS AFODA AFO
StrokeNervous system disorders1/230/23
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventPLS AFODA AFO
FatigueMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders1/230/23

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Ankle Foot Orthosis
<=18 years0
Between 18 and 65 years16
>=65 years4
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Ankle Foot Orthosis
Female9
Male11
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Ankle Foot Orthosis
Mini Mental State exam
Mini Mental State exam(units on a scale)Ankle Foot Orthosis
Mean29.2 ± 1.0
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Baylor Institute for rehabilitation
    Frisco, Texas 75034, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Bijleveld-Uitman M, van de Port I, Kwakkel G. Is gait speed or walking distance a better predictor for community walking after stroke? J Rehabil Med. 2013 Jun;45(6):535-40. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1147. PubMed 23584080 ↗
  • Bourland EL, Neville MA, Pickens ND. Loss, gain, and the reframing of perspectives in long-term stroke survivors: a dynamic experience of quality of life. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2011 Sep-Oct;18(5):437-49. doi: 10.1310/tsr1805-437. PubMed 22082695 ↗
  • Carse B, Bowers R, Meadows BC, Rowe P. The immediate effects of fitting and tuning solid ankle-foot orthoses in early stroke rehabilitation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2015 Dec;39(6):454-62. doi: 10.1177/0309364614538090. Epub 2014 Jun 17. PubMed 24938770 ↗
  • Eng JJ, Pang MY, Ashe MC. Balance, falls, and bone health: role of exercise in reducing fracture risk after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(2):297-313. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2007.01.0014. PubMed 18566947 ↗
  • de Seze MP, Bonhomme C, Daviet JC, Burguete E, Machat H, Rousseaux M, Mazaux JM. Effect of early compensation of distal motor deficiency by the Chignon ankle-foot orthosis on gait in hemiplegic patients: a randomized pilot study. Clin Rehabil. 2011 Nov;25(11):989-98. doi: 10.1177/0269215511410730. Epub 2011 Jul 12. PubMed 21750010 ↗
  • Everaert DG, Stein RB, Abrams GM, Dromerick AW, Francisco GE, Hafner BJ, Huskey TN, Munin MC, Nolan KJ, Kufta CV. Effect of a foot-drop stimulator and ankle-foot orthosis on walking performance after stroke: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Sep;27(7):579-91. doi: 10.1177/1545968313481278. Epub 2013 Apr 4. PubMed 23558080 ↗
  • Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Borden WB, Bravata DM, Dai S, Ford ES, Fox CS, Fullerton HJ, Gillespie C, Hailpern SM, Heit JA, Howard VJ, Kissela BM, Kittner SJ, Lackland DT, Lichtman JH, Lisabeth LD, Makuc DM, Marcus GM, Marelli A, Matchar DB, Moy CS, Mozaffarian D, Mussolino ME, Nichol G, Paynter NP, Soliman EZ, Sorlie PD, Sotoodehnia N, Turan TN, Virani SS, Wong ND, Woo D, Turner MB; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics--2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012 Jan 3;125(1):188-97. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182456d46. No abstract available. Erratum In: Circulation. 2012 Jun 5;125(22):e1001. PubMed 22215894 ↗
  • GAITRite electronic walkway technical reference, revision L. (2013.). (No. WI-02-15).CIR Systems Inc. (GAITRite technical manual)
  • Harris JE, Eng JJ, Marigold DS, Tokuno CD, Louis CL. Relationship of balance and mobility to fall incidence in people with chronic stroke. Phys Ther. 2005 Feb;85(2):150-8. PubMed 15679466 ↗
  • Hesse, S. (2003). Rehabilitation of gait after stroke: Evaluation, principles of therapy, novel treatment approaches, and assistive devices. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 19(2), 109-126.
  • Hyun CW, Kim BR, Han EY, Kim SM. Use of an ankle-foot orthosis improves aerobic capacity in subacute hemiparetic stroke patients. PM R. 2015 Mar;7(3):264-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.08.944. Epub 2014 Aug 16. PubMed 25134853 ↗
  • Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Recovery of walking function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Jan;76(1):27-32. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(95)80038-7. PubMed 7811170 ↗
  • Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22(3-5):281-99. PubMed 15502272 ↗
  • Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor "recovery" and "compensation" mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 May;23(4):313-9. doi: 10.1177/1545968308328727. Epub 2008 Dec 31. PubMed 19118128 ↗
  • Lord SE, McPherson K, McNaughton HK, Rochester L, Weatherall M. Community ambulation after stroke: how important and obtainable is it and what measures appear predictive? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Feb;85(2):234-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.05.002. PubMed 14966707 ↗
  • McCain, K. J., Smith, P. S., & Querry, R. (2012). Ankle-foot orthosis selection to facilitate gait recovery in adults after stroke: A case series. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics. 24 (3), 111-121.
  • Pound P, Gompertz P, Ebrahim S. A patient-centred study of the consequences of stroke. Clin Rehabil. 1998 Aug;12(4):338-47. doi: 10.1191/026921598677661555. PubMed 9744669 ↗
  • Rao N, Chaudhuri G, Hasso D, D'Souza K, Wening J, Carlson C, Aruin AS. Gait assessment during the initial fitting of an ankle foot orthosis in individuals with stroke. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2008 Jul;3(4):201-7. doi: 10.1080/17483100801973023. PubMed 18608442 ↗
  • Rosa MC, Marques A, Demain S, Metcalf CD. Fast gait speed and self-perceived balance as valid predictors and discriminators of independent community walking at 6 months post-stroke--a preliminary study. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(2):129-34. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.911969. Epub 2014 Apr 23. PubMed 24754638 ↗
  • Rosen E, Sunnerhagen KS, Kreuter M. Fear of falling, balance, and gait velocity in patients with stroke. Physiother Theory Pract. 2005 Apr-Jun;21(2):113-20. doi: 10.1080/09593980590922299. PubMed 16392464 ↗
  • Schmid AA, Rittman M. Consequences of poststroke falls: activity limitation, increased dependence, and the development of fear of falling. Am J Occup Ther. 2009 May-Jun;63(3):310-6. doi: 10.5014/ajot.63.3.310. PubMed 19522139 ↗
  • Simons CD, van Asseldonk EH, van der Kooij H, Geurts AC, Buurke JH. Ankle-foot orthoses in stroke: effects on functional balance, weight-bearing asymmetry and the contribution of each lower limb to balance control. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2009 Nov;24(9):769-75. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.07.006. Epub 2009 Aug 8. PubMed 19665825 ↗
  • Slijper A, Danielsson A, Willen C. Ambulatory Function and Perception of Confidence in Persons with Stroke with a Custom-Made Hinged versus a Standard Ankle Foot Orthosis. Rehabil Res Pract. 2012;2012:206495. doi: 10.1155/2012/206495. Epub 2012 May 17. PubMed 22685664 ↗
  • Tyson SF, Sadeghi-Demneh E, Nester CJ. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of an ankle-foot orthosis on gait biomechanics after stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2013 Oct;27(10):879-91. doi: 10.1177/0269215513486497. Epub 2013 Jun 24. PubMed 23798747 ↗
  • Tyson SF, Kent RM. Effects of an ankle-foot orthosis on balance and walking after stroke: a systematic review and pooled meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Jul;94(7):1377-85. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.12.025. Epub 2013 Feb 12. PubMed 23416220 ↗
  • Watanabe Y. Fear of falling among stroke survivors after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. Int J Rehabil Res. 2005 Jun;28(2):149-52. doi: 10.1097/00004356-200506000-00008. PubMed 15900185 ↗

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Jul 5, 2017

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 28, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02693834
Lead sponsor
Texas Woman's University
Collaborators
Baylor Research Institute
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Feb 29, 2016
Start date
Jan 2016
Primary completion
Apr 2018
Completion
Apr 2018
Results posted
Feb 28, 2020
Last update
Feb 28, 2020

Study contacts

Priya Karakkattil, MS
principal investigator · Texas Woman's University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion