Journal Home > Volume 4 , Issue 1

This paper is a review of some of the current research focused on using existing epidural spinal cord stimulation technologies in establishing the effectiveness in the recovery of independent standing, ambulation, or intentional movement of spinal cord injury patients. From a clinician’s perspective, the results have been intriguing, from a restorative perspective they are promising, and from a patient’s perspective they are hopeful. The outcomes, although still in the experimental phase, show some proof of theory and support further research. From a high volume university based clinician’s perspective, the resources needed to integrate this type of restorative care into a busy clinical practice are highly challenging without a well-structured and resource rich institutional restorative program. Patient selection is profoundly critical due to the extraordinary resources needed, and the level of motivation required to participate in such an intense and arduous rehabilitation process. Establishing an algorithmic approach to patient selection and treatment will be paramount to effectively utilize scarce resources and optimize outcomes. Further research is warranted, and the development of dedicated technological hardware and software for this therapeutic treatment versus using traditional spinal cord stimulation devices may yield more robust and efficacious outcomes.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

Epidural spinal cord stimulation for recovery from spinal cord injury: its place in therapy

Show Author's information Line Jacques( )Michael Safaee
Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Abstract

This paper is a review of some of the current research focused on using existing epidural spinal cord stimulation technologies in establishing the effectiveness in the recovery of independent standing, ambulation, or intentional movement of spinal cord injury patients. From a clinician’s perspective, the results have been intriguing, from a restorative perspective they are promising, and from a patient’s perspective they are hopeful. The outcomes, although still in the experimental phase, show some proof of theory and support further research. From a high volume university based clinician’s perspective, the resources needed to integrate this type of restorative care into a busy clinical practice are highly challenging without a well-structured and resource rich institutional restorative program. Patient selection is profoundly critical due to the extraordinary resources needed, and the level of motivation required to participate in such an intense and arduous rehabilitation process. Establishing an algorithmic approach to patient selection and treatment will be paramount to effectively utilize scarce resources and optimize outcomes. Further research is warranted, and the development of dedicated technological hardware and software for this therapeutic treatment versus using traditional spinal cord stimulation devices may yield more robust and efficacious outcomes.

Keywords: rehabilitation, recovery, independent standing, ambulation, intentional movement, locomotion

References(31)

1.
Ackery A, Tator C, Krassioukov A. A global perspective on spinal cord injury epidemiology. J Neurotrauma. 2004; 21(10): 1355–1370.
2.
Fehlings MG, Tighe A. Spinal cord injury: the promise of translational research. Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 25(5): E1.
3.
Kakulas BA, Kaelan C. The neuropathological foundations for the restorative neurology of spinal cord injury. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015;129(1): S1-7.
4.
Dietz V, Fouad K. Restoration of sensorimotor functions after spinal cord injury. Brain. 2014; 137(3): 654–667.
5.
Cook AW, Weinstein SP. Chronic dorsal column stimulation in multiple sclerosis. Preliminary report. NY State J Med. 1973. 73(24): p. 2868–72.
6.
Dimitrijevic, MR, Gerasimenko Y, Pinter MM. Evidence for a spinal central pattern generator in humans. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998;860: 360–376.
7.
Tator CH, Minassian K, Mushahwar VK. Spinal cord stimulation: therapeutic benefits and movement generation after spinal cord injury. Handb Clin Neurol. 2012;109: 283–296.
8.
Gerasimenko YP, Makarovskii AN, Nikitin OA. Control of locomotor activity in humans and animals in the absence of supraspinal influences. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 2002; 32(4): 417–423.
9.
Pearson K, Gordon J, Locomotion. In: Principles of neural science. Eds. Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, and Jessell TM. 2000, New York: McGraw-Hill.
10.
Angeli CA, Edgerton VR, Gerasimenko YP, and Harkema SJ. Altering spinal cord excitability enables voluntary movements after chronic complete paralysis in humans. Brain. 2014;137(5):1394–1409.
11.
Harkema S. Effect of epidural stimulation of the lumbosacral spinal cord on voluntary movement, standing and assisted stepping after motor complete paraplegia: a case study. Lancet. 2011; 377(9781): 1938–1947.
12.
Dekopov AV, Shabalov VA, tomsky AA, Hit MV, Salova. Chronic spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of cerebral and spinal spasticity. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2015: 93(2):133–139.
13.
Adams MM, Hicks HL. Spasticity after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2005; 43(10): 577–586.
14.
Elbasiouny SM, Moroz D, Bakr MM, Mushahwar VK. Management of spasticity after spinal cord injury: current techniques and future directions. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010; 24(1): 23–33.
15.
Barolat G. Surgical management of spasticity and spasms in spinal cord injury: an overview. J Am Paraplegia Soc. 1988;11(1): 9–13.
16.
Reynolds AF, Oakley JC. High frequency cervical epidural stimulation for spasticity. Appl Neurophysiol. 1982;45(1–2):93–97.
17.
Richardson RR, McLone DG. Percutaneous epidural neurostimulation for paraplegic spasticity. Surg Neurol. 1978; 9(3):153–155.
18.
Barolat G, Myklebust JB, Wenninger W. Effects of spinal cord stimulation on spasticity and spasms secondary to myelopathy. Appl Neurophysiol. 1988; 51(1): 29–44.
19.
Midha M, Schmitt JK. Epidural spinal cord stimulation for the control of spasticity in spinal cord injury patients lacks long-term efficacy and is not cost-effective. Spinal Cord. 1998; 36(3):190–192.
20.
Shealy CN, Mortimer JT, Reswick JB. Electrical inhibition of pain by stimulation of the dorsal columns: preliminary clinical report. Anesth Analg. 1967; 46(4): 489–491.
21.
Cui JG, Meyerson BA, Sollevi A, Linderoth B. Effect of spinal cord stimulation on tactile hypersensitivity in mononeuropathic rats is potentiated by simultaneous GABA(B) and adenosine receptor activation. Neurosci Lett. 1998; 247(2–3):183–186.
22.
Dubuisson D. Effect of dorsal-column stimulation on gelatinosa and marginal neurons of cat spinal cord. J Neurosurg. 1989;70(2):257–265.
23.
Stiller CO, Cui JG, O’Connor WT, Brodin E, Meyerson BA, Linderoth B. Release of gamma-aminobutyric acid in the dorsal horn and suppression of tactile allodynia by spinal cord stimulation in mononeuropathic rats. Neurosurgery. 1996;39(2):367–374.
24.
Linderoth B, Gazelius B, Franck J, Brodin E. Dorsal column stimulation induces release of serotonin and substance P in the cat dorsal horn. Neurosurgery. 1992;31(2):289–296.
25.
Myerson BA, Ren B, Herregodts P, Linderoth B. Spinal cord stimulation in animal models of mononeuropathy: effects on the withdrawal response and the flexor reflex. Pain. 1995; 61: 229–243.
26.
Linderoth B, Myerson B. Spinal cord stimulation: mechanism of action. In: Surgical management of pain. ed: Burchiel K. 2002, New York: Thieme Medical Publishers.
27.
Turner JA, Loeser JD, Deyo RA, Sanders SB. Spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed back surgery syndrome or complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review of effectiveness and complications. Pain. 2004;108(1–2):137–147.
28.
Kemler MA, De Vet HC, Barendse GA, Van Den Wildenberg FA, Van Kleef M. The effect of spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy: two years’ follow-up of the randomized controlled trial. Ann Neurol. 2004;55(1):13–18.
29.
North RB, Kidd DH, Farrokhi F, Piantadosi SA. Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomized, controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2005;56(1):98–106.
30.
Simpson EL, Duenas A, Holmes MW, Papaioannou D, Chilcott J. Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischaemic origin: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(17): iii, ix–x, 1–154.
31.
Taylor RS. Spinal cord stimulation in complex regional pain syndrome and refractory neuropathic back and leg pain/failed back surgery syndrome: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2006;31(4): S13–S19.
Publication history
Copyright
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Published: 19 September 2016
Issue date: December 2016

Copyright

© 2016 The Author(s).

Rights and permissions

© 2016 Jacques and Safaee. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms. php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

Return