A Comparison of Gait Parameters Using Varying Orthotic Designs in a Child With Spastic Diplegic Cerebral Palsy After Selective Dorsal Rhizotomy Surgery: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common developmental disorder in children. Selective dorsal rhizotomy (SDR) is an effective neurosurgical treatment to reduce lower-limb spasticity in children with spastic diplegic CP. An intensive period of rehabilitation, including gait training, is required for most children after this surgery. Orthoses have been widely used in children with CP. However, there is a lack of research showing which orthosis type is the most appropriate for children with spastic diplegic CP after SDR. Materials and Methods In this retrospective case report, we compared spatial and temporal gait parameters using three commonly used orthoses: foot orthosis (FO), supramalleolar orthosis (SMO), and ankle-foot orthosis/footwear combination (AFO/FC), before and after 3-month accommodation of combination use in a 5-year-old male patient with spastic diplegic CP after SDR. Results The results showed that although all orthoses improved gait function, the AFO/FCs appeared to initially provide the most stable support; however, after acclimatization, spatial and temporal gait parameters generally demonstrated greater improvement in FO and SMO conditions compared with AFO/FC. Discussion This report suggests stance phase stability may be enhanced with AFO/FCs, but swing phase may improve with FO and SMO conditions in children with weakness after SDR. Further studies analyzing gait, balance, and motor function using varying orthoses in children with CP after SDR are warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".