Just for sake of clarity there are some important distinctions in the study that you posted about:
It was done in persons with Stroke not MS
The average time since stroke was >4 years; so these patients were preconditioned to their AFO for a long time
The fact that the L300 match the results of the AFO is not bad, given the above fact (time since stroke) and that most participants received new or modified AFO's when they started
The L300 showed a larger percent change in recovery; measurements taken without the device
Participants in the trial significantly preferred the L300 over the AFO for effectiveness, everyday use, and continued use
Both groups received PT for 6 weeks in the beginning of the study which likely drove improvements in the groups despite which device they used.
Since the results, although equivalent, were statistically and clinically meaningful they could help with reimbursement and let patients and providers have more choices in how they manage drop foot.
Studies can be misleading (positively and negatively) but keep in mind that studies designed to get devices covered by insurance are usually designed to show equivalence to the current "covered" standard of care. In this case, both devices work, that doesn't mean there are not advantages outside the context of this trial.
Copy of study can be found here: http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/4 ... dbf63208e1