Functional Electrical Stimulation for Foot Drop in Multiple Sclerosis

US Neurology, 2015;11(1):10–8 DOI: http://doi.org/10.17925/USN.2015.11.01.10

Abstract:

Functional electrical stimulation is an effective treatment strategy for the management of foot drop in various neurologic conditions, as demonstrated in improvements in gait performance, mobility, physiologic cost, perceived walking ability, balance, fall frequency, and quality of life. In this article, we review the current literature on the effects of functional electrical stimulation for foot drop in persons with multiple sclerosis.

Keywords: Multiple sclerosis, gait, foot drop, functional electrical stimulation, review
Disclosure: Geraldine P Dapul, MD, has no conflicts of interest to declare. Francois Bethoux, MD, served as site principal investigator and national principal investigator for a randomized clinical trial of the WalkAide® FES device in stroke patients (INSTRIDE trial), sponsored by Innovative Neurotronics, Inc. Money was paid to his institution for his contribution to this study. No funding was received for the publication of this article.
Received: January 15, 2015 Accepted February 09, 2015
Correspondence: Geraldine P Dapul, MD, Mellen Center U-10, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, US. E: dapulg@ccf.org

Open Access: This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, adaptation, and reproduction provided the original author(s) and source are given appropriate credit.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, progressive disease of the central nervous system, believed to be caused by an autoimmune process, and resulting in demyelination and axonal loss in the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerves. MS affects approximately 400,000 individuals in the US alone and 2.5 million people worldwide. A decline in neurologic function, most notably in coordination, strength, tone, cognition, vision, sensation, and volitional control of bowel/bladder are hallmark characteristics of the disease, leading to reduced quality of life (QoL) and decreased participation in activities. Of primary concern to the MS population is impaired mobility, as it is the most visible disability and because of its profound impact on daily life.1,2

Gait disturbance is present in a large number of persons with MS (pwMS) and has been identified as one of the most disabling features of this neurologic disease. Compared with healthy controls, pwMS demonstrate decreased walking speed, decreased stride length, increased cadence, reduced active lower extremity range of motion (ROM), and increased variability in gait parameters.3–9

One of the more common gait pattern abnormalities demonstrated by pwMS is foot drop, caused by weakness of muscles responsible for ankle dorsiflexion and spasticity of the ankle plantarflexors. The ability to clear the foot by maintaining active dorsiflexion during the swing phase of the gait cycle is compromised in individuals with foot drop. Therefore, foot drop causes decreased gait efficiency and gait instability, leading to unwanted stumbles and falls. As a result, pwMS develop compensatory strategies including pelvic obliquity, hip hiking, and hip abduction with circumducted gait pattern to preserve foot clearance.

Treatment modalities to address foot drop include stretching, exercise, rehabilitation, orthotics, and assistive devices. The goals of treatment regardless of the intervention are to improve gait efficiency and safety, and overall improve the gait pattern to reduce musculoskeletal stress from altered biomechanics. The standard of care for foot drop has been the use of an ankle–foot orthosis (AFO). A more recently developed alternative to the AFO is functional electrical stimulation (FES).

Functional Electrical Stimulation for Foot Drop
The term FES refers to applying electrical current to a peripheral nerve via transcutaneous, percutaneous, or implanted electrodes, which in turn triggers muscles contractions with the goal of improving balance and gait. In the case of the FES application to foot drop, the electrical stimulation is applied to the common peroneal nerve, recruiting muscles controlled by both the deep and superficial peroneal nerves, and resulting in dorsiflexion and eversion of the ankle. The stimulation is synchronized with the gait cycle, so that it occurs during the swing phase of gait, and stops during the stance phase. FES devices generally include a power source (usually batteries), a stimulation unit, electrodes, and a mechanism to turn the stimulation on and off depending on the phase of the gait cycle. Various designs have been developed: wired versus wireless; tilt sensor on the leg versus heel switch. Commercially available FES systems for foot drop include the Odstock Dropped Foot Stimulator (ODFS®, Odstock Medical Limited, Salisbury, UK), the WalkAide® system (Innovative Neurotronics Inc., Austin, TX, US), the Bioness NESS L300® Foot Drop System (Bioness Inc., Valencia, CA, US), and the MyGait® system (Ottobock, Duderstadt, Germany). A majority of the published research in MS has focused on the ODFS and WalkAide devices. To date, only one head-to-head trial of these two devices on energy cost and walking speed in pwMS has been conducted.7 All of these systems provide transcutaneous stimulation via surface electrodes on the skin. From this point on, we will use the term, FES, when referring to transcutaneous FES for foot drop.

In 1960, Liberson et al.19 investigated the immediate benefits of using electrical stimulation to produce ankle dorsiflexion during the swing phase of the gait cycle in hemiplegic patients. The investigators found an immediate, positive effect on walking performance once the device was turned on, commonly referred to as the orthotic effect. The orthotic benefit, or “on-off” effect of FES on gait, has been well-documented in the MS population.3–9,13,14,16,20–24 More recently, the term training, or therapeutic, effect has been applied to changes in walking performance after regular, prolonged FES use when gait is evaluated without the device.14 We will refer to this type of effect as training effect throughout this article. Ultimately, the training effect reflects an improvement in motor ability of the affected limb over time without the assistance of FES. Additionally, the total orthotic effect of FES (defined as the change in walking speed with FES at follow-up assessment compared with walking speed at baseline without FES8) has been reported in pwMS.8,16,24

One potential explanation for the training effect of FES is the promotion of neuroplasticity with repetitive daily stimulation, producing a cumulative effect over time.23,25 Evereart et al.23 observed the effects of using FES for several months in both nonprogressive and progressive disorders of the central nervous system and found a significant increase in motor voluntary contraction and motor end plate potential. The large increase in electrophysiologic parameters observed suggests strengthening of the residual corticospinal pathways and activation of motor-related areas of the cortex, regardless of the neurologic condition.23 However, evaluating the long-term training effects of FES (or any assistive device) in the MS population is complicated by the progressive accumulation of disability over time compared with nonprogressive conditions such as stroke.14 Therefore, data supporting the training effect of peroneal nerve stimulation has been mainly explored in the stroke population.

A review of the pertinent literature on the effects of FES for foot drop in individuals in MS was conducted. Evidence pertaining to the efficacy of FES on various outcome measures is presented in this review article and summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3

References:
  1. Heesen C, Bohm J, Reich C, et al., Patient perception of bodily functions in multiple sclerosis: gait and visual function are the most valuable, Mult Scler, 2008;14:988–91.
  2. Larocca NG, Impact of walking impairment in multiple sclerosis: perspectives of patients and care partners, Patient, 2011;4:189–201.
  3. Sheffler LR, Bailey SN, Chae J, Spatiotemporal and kinematic effect of peroneal nerve stimulation versus an ankle-foot orthosis in patients with multiple sclerosis: a case series, PM R, 2009;1:604–11.
  4. Taylor PN, Burridge JH, Dunkerley AL, et al., Clinical use of the Odstock dropped foot stimulator: its effect on the speed and effort of walking, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1999;80:1577–83.
  5. Scott SM, van der Linden ML, Hooper JE, et al., Quantification of gait kinematics and walking ability of people with multiple sclerosis who are new users of functional electrical stimulation, J Rehabil Med, 2013;45:364–9.
  6. Taylor P, Barrett C, Mann G, et al., A feasibility study to investigate the effect of functional electrical stimulation and physiotherapy exercise on the quality of gait of people with multiple sclerosis, Neuromodulation, 2014;17:75–84; discussion 84.
  7. Miller L, Rafferty D, Paul L, Mattison P, A comparison of the orthotic effect of the Odstock Dropped Foot Stimulator and the Walkaide functional electrical stimulation systems on energy cost and speed of walking in Multiple Sclerosis, Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2014; [Epub ahead of print].
  8. van der Linden ML, Hooper JE, Cowan P, et al., Habitual functional electrical stimulation therapy improves gait kinematics and walking performance, but not patient-reported functional outcomes, of people with multiple sclerosis who present with foot-drop, PLoS One, 2014;9:e103368.
  9. van der Linden ML, Scott SM, Hooper JE, et al., Gait kinematics of people with multiple sclerosis and the acute application of functional electrical stimulation, Gait & Posture, 2014;39:1092–6.
  10. Sheffler LR, Hennessey MT, Knutson JS, et al., Functional effect of an ankle foot orthosis on gait in multiple sclerosis: a pilot study, Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 2008;87:26–32.
  11. Taylor PN, Burridge JH, Dunkerley AL, et al., Patients’ perceptions of the Odstock Dropped Foot Stimulator (ODFS), Clin Rehabil, 1999;13:439–46.
  12. Esnouf JE, Taylor PN, Mann GE, Barrett CL, Impact on activities of daily living using a functional electrical stimulation device to improve dropped foot in people with multiple sclerosis, measured by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Mult Scler, 2010;16:1141–7.
  13. Barrett C, Taylor P, The effects of the odstock drop foot stimulator on perceived quality of life for people with stroke and multiple sclerosis, Neuromodulation, 2010;13:58–64.
  14. Stein RB, Everaert DG, Thompson AK, et al., Long-term therapeutic and orthotic effects of a foot drop stimulator on walking performance in progressive and nonprogressive neurological disorders, Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2010;24:152–67.
  15. Bulley C, Mercer TH, Hooper JE, et al., Experiences of functional electrical stimulation (FES) and ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) for foot-drop in people with multiple sclerosis, Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2014; [Epub ahead of print].
  16. Downing A, Van Ryn D, Fecko A, et al., Effect of a 2-week trial of functional electrical stimulation on gait function and quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis, Int J MS Care, 2014;16:146–52.
  17. Cameron MH, Wagner JM, Gait abnormalities in multiple sclerosis: pathogenesis, evaluation, and advances in treatment, Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep, 2011;11:507–15.
  18. Mayer L, Warring T, Agrella S, Rogers HL, Fox EJ, Effects of functional electrical stimulation on gait function and quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis taking dalfampridine, Int J MS Care, 2015;17(1):35-41.
  19. Liberson WT, Holmquest HJ, Scot D, Dow M, Functional electrotherapy: stimulation of the peroneal nerve synchronized with the swing phase of the gait of hemiplegic patients, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1961;42:101–5.
  20. Paul L, Rafferty D, Young S, et al., The effect of functional electrical stimulation on the physiological cost of gait in people with multiple sclerosis, Mult Scler, 2008;14:954–61.
  21. Sheffler LR, Hennessey MT, Knutson JS, Chae J, Neuroprosthetic effect of peroneal nerve stimulation in multiple sclerosis: a preliminary study, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2009;90:362–65.
  22. Barrett CL, Mann GE, Taylor PN, Strike P, A randomized trial to investigate the effects of functional electrical stimulation and therapeutic exercise on walking performance for people with multiple sclerosis, Mult Scler, 2009;15:493–504.
  23. Everaert DG, Thompson AK, Chong SL, Stein RB, Does functional electrical stimulation for foot drop strengthen corticospinal connections?, Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2010;24:168–77.
  24. Taylor P, Humphreys L, Swain I, The long-term cost-effectiveness of the use of Functional Electrical Stimulation for the correction of dropped foot due to upper motor neuron lesion, J Rehabil Med, 2013;45:154–60.
  25. Khaslavskaia S, Ladouceur M, Sinkjaer T, Increase in tibialis anterior motor cortex excitability following repetitive electrical stimulation of the common peroneal nerve, Exp Brain Res, 2002;145:309–15.
  26. Day H, Jutai J, Campbell KA, Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead, Disabil Rehabil, 2002;24:31–7.
  27. Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, et al., The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure, Brain, 2001;124:962–73.
  28. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, et al., Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: the 12-Item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12), Neurology, 2003;60:31–6.
  29. Krupp LB, LaRocca NG, Muir-Nash J, Steinberg AD. The Fatigue Severity Scale: application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus, Arch Neurol, 1989;46(10):1121-3.
  30. Bethoux F, Rogers HL, Nolan KJ, et al., The effects of peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation versus ankle-foot orthosis in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial, Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2014;28:688–97.
  31. Kluding PM, Dunning K, O’Dell MW, et al., Foot drop stimulation versus ankle foot orthosis after stroke: 30-week outcomes, Stroke, 2013;44:1660–9.
  32. O’Dell MW, Dunning K, Kluding P, et al., Response and prediction of improvement in gait speed from functional electrical stimulation in persons with poststroke drop foot, PM & R, 2014;6:587–601; quiz 601.
  33. Heller BW, Clarke AJ, Good TR, et al., Automated setup of functional electrical stimulation for drop foot using a novel 64 channel prototype stimulator and electrode array: results from a gait-lab based study, Med Eng Phys, 2013;35:74–81.
Keywords: Multiple sclerosis, gait, foot drop, functional electrical stimulation, review