Postoperative management after forefoot procedures has evidence gaps. The parent randomized controlled trial evaluated intermittent one Hertz neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) of the common peroneal nerve as an adjunct to standard of care (SOC). This sub-analysis isolates patients who underwent forefoot surgery to assess early wound healing, edema, and patient-reported outcomes.
The intervention tested corresponds to intermittent 1 Hz stimulation applied to the common peroneal nerve; the evaluated device is manufactured by Firstkind Ltd, a fact disclosed by the authors.
This sub-analysis included 42 patients undergoing forefoot procedures drawn from the randomized controlled trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04927234). Of these, 26 patients received NMES in addition to SOC, and 16 received SOC alone. The manuscript is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed; authors explicitly state this and note the findings should not yet be used to guide clinical practice.
The authors report ethical approvals from multiple oversight bodies: Ethics Committee of Hospital Clinic de Barcelona (Spain), Ethics Committee of Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron (Spain), West of Scotland REC 4 (United Kingdom), and the Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB) in the United States.
Primary endpoints for this sub-analysis reported in the abstract were:
The time point explicitly reported in the abstract for wound healing and edema was 14 days after surgery. The abstract does not present detailed timing beyond this assessment or additional follow-up outcomes within this sub-analysis report.
At 14 days, the rate of complete wound healing was reported as 77% in the NMES plus SOC group compared with 40% in the SOC-only group. The authors report this difference reached statistical significance (p<0.05). The abstract presents these group-level percentages and the p value but does not provide additional details such as absolute risk reduction, confidence intervals, or exact numbers of healed wounds beyond the group percentages.
Edema assessed by the FO8 method showed a greater reduction in the NMES group. The abstract reports a 74% relative reduction in edema compared with SOC and indicates statistical significance for this comparison (p=0.02). The report does not supply baseline FO8 values, absolute reductions, or variability measures in the abstract.
The authors state that patient-reported outcomes were captured using the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ). However, the abstract of this sub-analysis does not report MOXFQ results or scores. Therefore, specific effects of NMES on patient-reported pain, function, or social interaction as measured by MOXFQ are not provided in the source document.
The report confirms that all relevant ethical guidelines were followed and that necessary approvals were obtained from the named ethics committees and institutional review board. The trial is registered (NCT04927234). Competing interests are declared: two authors are employees of Firstkind Ltd (manufacturer of the evaluated device) and a third author is a consultant to Firstkind Ltd. Funder information is declared as Firstkind Ltd. The authors state that underlying data supporting the findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to data protection and confidentiality requirements.
In this sub-analysis of patients undergoing forefoot surgery, intermittent one Hertz NMES of the common peroneal nerve was associated with a higher proportion of complete wound healing at 14 days and a larger reduction in edema versus standard of care alone. Reported group differences were statistically significant for both wound healing (77% vs 40%, p<0.05) and edema (74% relative reduction, p=0.02).
Key limitations evident from the abstracted report include the small sample size within this surgical subgroup (42 patients), limited reporting of absolute values and measures of variability, and absence of MOXFQ results in the abstract. The document is a preprint and explicitly not peer reviewed; the authors caution against using these results to change clinical practice until peer review and fuller reporting are available.
Clinicians and researchers interested in postoperative care after forefoot procedures may consider these findings hypothesis-generating. Further scrutiny of the full trial report, peer review, and independent replication would be required to substantiate efficacy, define effect sizes, and examine longer-term outcomes beyond the 14-day assessment. Data are available on request from the corresponding author for those wishing to perform secondary analyses or to verify reported results.