SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cattaneo, D
Right arrow Articles by Cardini, R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cattaneo, D
Right arrow Articles by Cardini, R
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Do static or dynamic AFOs improve balance?

D Cattaneo

F Marazzini

A Crippa

R Cardini

Don Gnocchi Foundation IRCCS, Onlus-Milano, V. Capecelatro 66-20148 Milano, Italy

Objective: To verify if partial or total limitation of degrees of freedom at ankle joints could help patients with balance disorders in standing and walking.

Design: A cross-over design was chosen. Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) were tested in three experimental conditions: barefooted, wearing ankle foot orthoses (AFOs), and wearing AFOs that allowed plantar flexion.

Setting: Neurorehabilitation unit in a rehabilitation centre.

Subjects: Fourteen patients suffering from MS with mild strength problems and balance disorders that required them to use walking aids outside.

Main outcome measures: Tests inferring static and dynamic skills were carried out in the three experimental conditions described above.

Results: Improvements were obtained in static balance tests especially wearing dynamic AFOs; the number of patients who were able to pass tasks on balance in upright position such as flstanding with feet together, head extended' increased from three to nine. Dynamic balance was impaired especially with static AFOs; the time spent walking 10 metres with these orthoses increased by 172% with respect to barefoot; less difference (113%) has been reported wearing dynamic AFOs.

Conclusion: Static and dynamic AFOs improved static balance, while dynamic balance was impaired especially by static AFOs; less negative influence on dynamic balance has been found while wearing dynamic AFOs.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 16, No. 8, 894-899 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215502cr547oa


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




Advertisement