L. Sykes et al., ENERGY-EXPENDITURE OF WALKING FOR ADULT PATIENTS WITH SPINAL-CORD LESIONS USING THE RECIPROCATING GAIT ORTHOSIS AND FUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL-STIMULATION, Spinal cord, 34(11), 1996, pp. 659-665
A major factor influencing compliance with walking orthoses following
spinal cord damage, is the energy requirement associated with them. We
compared ambulatory energy expenditure in subjects using the reciproc
ating gait orthosis (RGO) with and without functional electrical stimu
lation (FES) of the thigh muscles at self selected walking speeds. Fiv
e adult subjects (median age 34 years, range 24-37) with spinal cord l
esions ranging from C2 (incomplete) to T6 volunteered to participate i
n this study. All subjects were successful RGO users (median use 5.7 y
ears, range 4.1-7.3). Walking speed (mis), ambulatory energy consumpti
on (J/kg/s) and energy cost (J/kg/m) were derived from oxygen uptake d
etermined using the Douglas bag technique. We anticipated that subject
s walking with FES would either: (a) walk at the same speed but reduce
their energy cost or (b) increase their walking speed for the same (o
r less) energy cost. Walking speed and energy cost remained unchanged
in one subject. One subject increased his walking speed by 14.0% and i
ncreased his energy consumption by 8.4%. His energy cost remained unch
anged. Three subjects increased their walking speeds (by 12.4, 12.7 an
d 6.8%), energy consumption (by 25.9, 20.4 and 18.4% respectively) and
energy cost (by 11.6, 6.8 and 10.5% respectively). We did not find a
substantial benefit, in terms of energy expenditure, from the hybrid s
ystem when walking continuously for 5 min. We suggest that the hybrid
system may be of greater benefit during prolonged walking, although ot
her limitations, inherent in the RGO itself, may prevent an increase i
n compliance. Repetition of walking speed tests supported the reliabil
ity of our results. Tests on comparably aged, able-bodied subjects sho
wed that an increase in energy cost of up to 5.8% was within the biolo
gical variability of the subject and the error of the methodology.