Retrospective cohort study shows medium-frequency FES improves walking speed in post-stroke foot drop, suggesting optimal clinical use.
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of low, medium, and high-frequency functional electrical stimulation (FES) in post-stroke foot drop (FD), aiming to identify optimal frequency parameters for clinical practice. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, 90 patients with post-stroke FD admitted between January 2021–December 2023 were grouped based on received FES frequency: low-frequency (20–30 Hz, n = 30), medium-frequency (31–40 Hz, n = 30), and high-frequency (41–50 Hz, n = 30). All patients received conventional rehabilitation combined with FES. The primary efficacy outcome was the improvement in 10-meter maximum walking speed (10MWS). Secondary outcomes included Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Lower Extremity (FMA-LE) scores and Functional Ambulation Category (FAC), and ankle dorsiflexor muscle strength. Results Baseline characteristics were comparable (all p > 0.05). The medium-frequency group showed significantly greater improvement in 10MWS (0.246 ± 0.095 m/s) versus low (0.154 ± 0.063 m/s) and high-frequency groups (0.145 ± 0.050 m/s) ( p < 0.001). FMA-LE improvement was also superior in the medium-frequency group (8.60 ± 1.99 points; p < 0.001). Ankle dorsi-flexor strength improvement was significantly greater in the medium-frequency group (1.93 ± 0.25 grade) compared to both low (0.97 ± 0.18 grade) and high-frequency groups (1.03 ± 0.18 grade) ( p < 0.001), with a favorable trend also observed in FAC. Adverse event incidence was low (3.3%) and similar across groups ( p = 0.355). Subgroup analysis indicated consistent medium-frequency efficacy across stroke types. Conclusion In this retrospective comparative study, medium-frequency (31–40 Hz) FES was associated with optimal efficacy and safety outcomes for post-stroke FD, showing significantly greater improvement in walking speed and lower limb function without added risk. These findings suggest it as a promising parameter for clinical evaluation, though verification by prospective trials is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: