**3. Results**

### *3.1. Spatio-Temporal Gait Parameters*

There were no significant differences between the percentage of the stance phase in the gait cycle (neither for the paretic limb nor for the non-paretic limb), comparing walking with orthoses and without them. On the other hand, statistically significant differences were found in the relative step length for both lower limbs. Significantly worse results are obtained when walking barefoot. Similar relationships were observed in the gait speed. The subjects walked with significantly lower gait speed, when walking barefoot. Additionally, gait cadence in the hemiplegic children group, when using AFO, was significantly reduced (*p* = 0.001) (Table 2).



BF—barefoot, AFO—ankle–foot orthosis, SD- standard deviation, *p* - significance level

### *3.2. Kinematic Parameters*

Using AFO cause a statistically significant increase in ankle dorsiflexion at initial contact compared to walking barefoot on both, the affected (*p* = 0.001) and non-affected side (*p* = 0.019). Knee flexion at initial contact, when using AFOs, was reduced by 7.6◦ (*p* = 0.038) on the affected side, while no significant reduction of the knee flexion at initial contact on the non-affected side was observed (*p* = 0.09).

To assess the effect of AFOs on the swing phase, we looked at the maximal ankle dorsiflexion during swing phase and maximal knee flexion in swing phase. Ankle dorsiflexion was significantly increased, when using AFOs, on both sides (*p* = 0.002 and 0.041). Knee flexion was not significantly reduced by the use of AFOs.

To evaluate foot clearance, we calculated the combined maximal flexion of the two joints. Combined flexion at the knee and hip joints showed a significant reduction, for both, the affected and non-affected lower limbs (*p* = 0.031 and 0.046) (Table 3).


**Table 3.** Kinematic parameters

BF—barefoot, AF—ankle–foot orthosis.

### *3.3. Gait Deviation Index*

When using AFO, the GDI values increased from 68.6 to 75.1 (*p* = 0.029) in the affected lower limb and from 77.9 to 82.3 (*p* = 0.047) in the non-affected lower limb, which was a statistically significant improvement (Table 4).


**Table 4.** Changes in GDI

BF—barefoot, AFO—ankle–foot orthosis, GDI—gait deviation index.

### *3.4. Gait Variability Index*

The GVI values also increased from 74.2 to 83.1 (*p* < 0.001) and from 78.6 to 86.5 (*p* < 0.001) in the affected and non-affected lower limbs, respectively, which was a statistically significant improvement (Table 5).



BF—barefoot, AFO—ankle–foot orthosis, GVI—gait variability index.
