Download PDF
neuroreha 2021; 13(01): 35-39
DOI: 10.1055/a-1352-9597
Aus der Praxis

Sprunggelenkorthesen bei neurologischen Krankheitsbildern

Thorsten Böing
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

In der orthopädietechnischen Versorgung von Patienten mit Fußheberschwäche ist die exakte medizinische Diagnose ein erster Wegweiser für die Auswahl möglicher Hilfsmitteloptionen. Denn von ihr hängt ab, ob Orthesen oder funktionelle Elektrostimulation die richtige Versorgungswahl sind.



Publication History

Article published online:
17 March 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Hughes M. Die Unterschenkelorthese in Silikontechnik (SAFO): Silikon im Orthesenbau. MOT 2008; 128: 77-80
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Lamprecht S. Einsatz von Orthesen in der Neurorehabilitation. Neurol Rehabil 2016; 22: S142-S154
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Teasell R, Hussein N, Vanderlaan D. et al. Stroke rehabilitation clinician handbook: Lower extremity motor and mobility rehabilitation. http://www.ebrsr.com/sites/default/files/Chapter%203_Lower%20Extremity_2020_ML.pdf Stand: 15.1.2021
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R. et al. What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014; 9: e87987
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/ Stand: 15.1.2021
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Nikamp C, Buurke J, Schaake L. et al. Effect of long-term use of ankle-foot orthoses on tibialis anterior muscle electromyography in patients with sub-acute stroke: A randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med 2019; 51: 11-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurorehabilitation. S2e-Leitlinie: Rehabilitation der Mobilität nach Schlaganfall (ReMoS). dgnr.de 2015. Im Internet: www.dgnr.de/images/pdf/leitlinien/S2e_Leit-linie_Rehabilitation_der_Mobilitaet_nach_Schlaganfall.pdf Stand: 15.1.2021
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Tyson SF, Kent R. Effects of an ankle-foot orthosis on balance and walking after stroke: A systematic review and pooled meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94: 1377-1385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Stevens V, Goodman K, Rough K. et al. Gait impairment and optimizing mobility in multiple sclerosis. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2013; 24: 573-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Swinnen E, Deliens T, Dewulf E. et al. What is the opinion of patients with multiple sclerosis and their healthcare professionals about lower limb orthoses? A qualitative study using focus group discussions. NeuroRehabilitation 2018; 42: 81-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Swinnen E, Lefeber N, Werbrouck A. et al. Male and female opinions about orthotic devices of the lower limb: A multicentre, observational study in patients with central neurological movement disorders. NeuroRehabilitation 2018; 42: 121-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Boes MK, Bollaert RE, Kesler RM. et al. Six-minute walk test performance in persons with multiple sclerosis while using passive or powered Ankle-Foot Orthoses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018; 99: 484-490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Howlett OA, Lannin NA, Ada L. et al. Functional electrical stimulation improves activity after stroke: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 96: 934-943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Prenton S, Hollands KL, Kenney LPJ. Functional electrical stimulation versus ankle footortheses for foot-drop: A meta-analysis of orthotic effects. J Rehabil Med 2016; 48: 646-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 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: 688-697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kluding P, Dunning K, O’Dell M. et al. Foot drop stimulation versus ankle foot orthosis after stroke: 30 weeks outcome. Stroke 2013; 44: 1660-1669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Everaert D, Stein R, Abrams G. et al. Effect of a foot-drop stimulator and ankle-foot orthosis on walking performance after stroke: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2013; 27: 579-591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dunning K, O’Dell M, Kluding P. et al. The Functional Ambulation: Standard Treatment versus Electrical Stimulation Therapy (FASTEST) trial for stroke: Study design and protocol. Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials 2013; 5: 39-49
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Khurana SR, Beranger AG, Felix ER. Perceived exertion is lower when using a functional electrical stimulation neuroprosthesis compared with an ankle-foot orthosis in persons with multiple sclerosis: A preliminary study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 96: 133-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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: 146-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Böing T. Hilfsmittelversorgungen bei Peronaeusparese im ICF-Fokus von Aktivität und Teilhabe. 3rd European Congress of NeuroRehabilitation, 1.–4.12.2015. European Federation of NeuroRehabilitation Societies, Wien.
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Böing T. Funktionelle Elektrostimulation in Therapie und Alltag. In: Schupp W, Elsner B. Hrsg. Sensomotorische Neurorehabilitation: Therapieoptionen und Versorgungsalltag. Erfahrungen zwischen Evidenz und Praxis. Bad Honnef: Hippocampus; 2017: 85-89
    Google Scholar