A randomized controlled evaluation of the efficacy of an ankle-foot cast on walking recovery early after stroke: SWIFT cast trial

  • Valerie M. Pomeroy*
  • , Philip Rowe
  • , Allan Clark
  • , Andrew Walker
  • , Andrew Kerr
  • , Elizabeth Chandler
  • , Mark Barber
  • , Jean-Claude Baron
  • , Lindsay Anderson
  • , Myrto-Despoina Dounavi
  • , Leo Earl
  • , Sheila Gregory
  • , Claire Havis
  • , Simon Horton
  • , P. Simon Jones
  • , Konstantinos Kaliarntas
  • , Niamh Kennedy
  • , Kathleen Lane
  • , David Legg
  • , Siva T. Marrapu
  • Emme McColl, Hannah Moran, Hannah Schutt, Jessica Smith, U. Chris Ugboule (sic)
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BackgroundTimely provision of an ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) orthotist customized for individuals early after stroke can be problematic. 
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of a therapist-made AFO (SWIFT Cast) for walking recovery. 
MethodsThis was a randomized controlled, observer-blind trial. Participants (n = 105) were recruited 3 to 42 days poststroke. All received conventional physical therapy (CPT) that included use of “off-the-shelf” and orthotist-made AFOs. People allocated to the experimental group also received a SWIFT Cast for up to 6 weeks. Measures were undertaken before randomization, 6 weeks thereafter (outcome), and at 6 months after stroke (follow-up). The primary measure was walking speed. Clinical efficacy evaluation used analysis of covariance. 
ResultsUse of a SWIFT Cast during CPT sessions was significantly higher (P < .001) for the SWIFT Cast (55%) than the CPT group (3%). The CPT group used an AFO in 26% of CPT sessions, compared with 11% for the SWIFT Cast group (P = .005). At outcome, walking speed was 0.42 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.37) m/s for the CPT group and 0.32 (SD = 0.34) m/s for the SWIFT Cast group. Follow-up walking speed was 0.53 (SD = 0.38) m/s for the CPT group and 0.43 (0.34) m/s for the SWIFT Cast group. Differences, after accounting for minimization factors, were insignificant at outcome (P = .345) and follow-up (P = .360). 
Conclusion and implicationsSWIFT Cast did not enhance the benefit of CPT, but the control group had greater use of another AFO. However, SWIFT Cast remains a clinical option because it is low cost and custom-made by therapists who can readily adapt it during the rehabilitation period.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)40-48
Number of pages9
JournalNeurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
Volume30
Issue number1
Early online date30 Apr 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2016

Keywords

  • Rehabilitation
  • Stroke
  • Orhotics
  • Physical therapy
  • Walking

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A randomized controlled evaluation of the efficacy of an ankle-foot cast on walking recovery early after stroke: SWIFT cast trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this