The purpose of this study is to gather data to see if the Laser Cane and/or U-Step Walker with laser accessory is more effective in aiding with gait freezing than a regular cane/U-Step Walker in patients who have idiopathic Parkinson's disease.
Freezing of gait is a significant clinical problem in Parkinson's disease (PD). It interferes with daily functioning and quality of life and often results in falls that potentially can inflict serious injury. In recent years, much more attention has been focused on the clinical characteristics of gait freezing, the severity of falls that can result, and the use of visual cues as a possible treatment in order to understand the implications of episodic freezing. Few clinical studies have been done to confirm the clinical observations to date. The laser cane is a device that has been used and prescribed in movement disorder centers as the only form of treatment for freezing of gait. Although it has been shown to be effective in many cases, there is no published data to support what has been observed in the clinic. The proposed study seeks to clarify unanswered questions regarding the laser cane and its efficacy in aiding with episodic gait freezing and falls.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
32
Laser Cane with Laser Accessory and/or U-Step Walker with Laser Accessory
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
The Neurological Institute of New York at Columbia University
New York, New York, United States
Mean Change From Baseline (Visit 1 Until Visit 2) to Endpoint (After Visit 2 Until Visit 3) in the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire Score.
The FOGQ has a minimum of 0 and max of 4 for each question, with 4 representing more severe freezing of gait. There are 6 questions, so the total score ranges from 0 to 24. It was pre-specified that all 26 subjects were treated as a single group with respect to the primary outcome measure regardless of whether or not they had a 1 month or 2 month baseline period.
Time frame: 2-3 months
Mean Change in Time to Perform the Timed Gait Test With vs Without the Laser Feature
Mean change in time to perform the timed gait test with versus without the laser feature from visit 1 to visit 3. It was pre-specified that all 26 subjects would be treated as a single group with respect to the outcome measure regardless of whether or not they had a 1 month or 2 month baseline period
Time frame: 2-3 months
Mean Change in Number of Falls Without Versus With the Laserlight Visual Cue.
Mean change in falls per week for the period between visit 1 and visit 2 (without laserlight visual cue) compared to the period between visit 2 and visit 3 (with the laserlight visual cue).
Time frame: 2-3 months
Percentage Change in Falls
The mean change in fall frequency from the baseline period without the laserlight visual cue compared to the subsequent period during which they used the laserlight visual cue among subjects experiencing at least one fall during the baseline and subsequent study periods. This outcome measure is expressed as a percentage change from the baseline period.
Time frame: 1 to 2 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.