Innovative Closed-loop Functional Electrical Stimulation Control System for Augmenting Post-stroke Gait

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age40-90
SponsorEmory University

About this trial

This study will compare the performance of a novel data-driven model-predictive controller (MPC) based functional electrical stimulation (FES) system versus a conventional FES system for footdrop correction during treadmill and overground walking tasks in people post-stroke.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

>6 months since stroke

cortical or subcortical stroke

able to walk 10-meters with or without an assistive device

sufficient cardiovascular health and ankle stability to walk on treadmill without ankle orthosis

Disqualifiers

cerebellar signs

score >1 on question 1b (does not know the current month and age) and >0 on question 1c (can not blink eyes and squeeze hands) on NIH Stroke Scale

inability to communicate with investigators

neglect/hemianopia

Trial design

Design model

Crossover

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Model-Predictive Controller (MPC) Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES)

    Device

    The model-predictive controller (MPC) determines the timing and intensity of electrical stimulation delivered for FES. MPC combined with real-time ultrasound-based feedback delivers optimal FES intensities and minimizes fatigue. FES is delivered to the ankle dorsiflexor muscles using a commercially available FDA-approved electrical stimulator.

  • Conventional Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES)

    Device

    For functional electrical stimulation, surface electrodes are placed on the paretic leg on skin overlying the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle, with intensity pre-set to elicit dorsiflexion to neutral against gravity. FES will be delivered to the ankle dorsiflexor muscles using a commercially available FDA-approved electrical stimulator.

Treatment groups

20 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: MPC FES Followed by Conventional FESExperimental treatment 2 interventions
Group B: Conventional FES Followed by MPC FESExperimental treatment 2 interventions

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Number of Adverse Events

Safety is assessed as the number of adverse events experienced by study participants.

Time frame
Day 1
2

Count of Risks

Safety is assessed as the count of risks, including falling, discomfort, pain, skin problems, fatigue, and soreness.

Time frame
Day 1
3

Participant Perception of Comfort

Participant perception of comfort is measured on an 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 10, where 10 is the most comfortable.

Time frame
Day 1
4

Participant Perception of Acceptability

Participant perception of acceptability is measured on an 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 10, where 10 is the most acceptable.

Time frame
Day 1

Secondary outcomes

1

Peak Ankle Dorsiflexion Angle During Swing

Gait biomechanics performance is assessed as the peak ankle dorsiflexion angle during swing. The normal range for peak ankle dorsiflexion is 0 to 5 degrees.

Time frame
Day 1
2

Overground Walking Distance

Gait performance is assessed as overground walking distance traveled, in meters, during a 6-minute walk test.

Time frame
Day 1
3

FES Intensity

FES system performance is assessed as FES intensity. FES intensity is measured during a treadmill walking bout. Intensity is measured by milliamps (mA) or millivolts (mV).

Time frame
Day 1

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

Emory University

Lead sponsor

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)

Collaborator