» Articles » PMID: 36769503

Optimization of Transspinal Stimulation Applications for Motor Recovery After Spinal Cord Injury: Scoping Review

Overview
Journal J Clin Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2023 Feb 11
PMID 36769503
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a debilitating condition that can significantly affect an individual's life, causing paralysis, autonomic dysreflexia, and chronic pain. Transspinal stimulation (TSS) is a non-invasive form of neuromodulation that activates the underlying neural circuitries of the spinal cord. Application of TSS can be performed through multiple stimulation protocols, which may vary in the electrodes' size or position as well as stimulation parameters, and which may influence the response of motor functions to the stimulation. Due to the novelty of TSS, it is beneficial to summarize the available evidence to identify the range of parameters that may provide the best outcomes for motor response. The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies examining the effects of TSS on limb motor function. A literature search yielded 34 studies for analysis, in which electrode placement and stimulation parameters varied considerably. The stimulation protocols from each study and their impact on limb motor function were summarized. Electrode placement was variable based on the targeted limb. Studies for the upper limbs targeted the cervical enlargement with anatomical placement of the cathode over the cervical vertebral region. In lower-limb studies, the cathode(s) were placed over the thoracic and lumbar vertebral regions, to target the lumbar enlargement. The effects of carrier frequency were inconclusive across the studies. Multisite cathodal placements yielded favorable motor response results compared to single-site placement. This review briefly summarized the current mechanistic evidence of the effect of TSS on motor response after SCI. Our findings indicate that optimization of stimulation parameters will require future randomized controlled studies to independently assess the effects of different stimulation parameters under controlled circumstances.

Citing Articles

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Functional Restoration in Spinal Cord Injury: A Narrative Review.

Li T, Chen J Cureus. 2025; 17(2):e78610.

PMID: 40062017 PMC: 11890654. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.78610.


Initial feasibility evaluation of the RISES system: An innovative and activity-based closed-loop framework for spinal cord injury rehabilitation and recovery.

Madarshahian S, Guerrero T, Aung P, Gustafson K, Harrop J, Johnson D J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2024; 11:20556683241280242.

PMID: 39421013 PMC: 11483808. DOI: 10.1177/20556683241280242.


Modulations in neural pathways excitability post transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation among individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review.

Tajali S, Balbinot G, Pakosh M, Sayenko D, Zariffa J, Masani K Front Neurosci. 2024; 18:1372222.

PMID: 38591069 PMC: 11000807. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1372222.


Spinal Cord Stimulation for Poststroke Hemiparesis: A Scoping Review.

Allen J, Karri S, Yang C, Stoykov M Am J Occup Ther. 2024; 78(2).

PMID: 38477681 PMC: 11017736. DOI: 10.5014/ajot.2024.050533.


Transcutaneous spinal stimulation in people with and without spinal cord injury: Effect of electrode placement and trains of stimulation on threshold intensity.

Finn H, Bye E, Elphick T, Boswell-Ruys C, Gandevia S, Butler J Physiol Rep. 2023; 11(11):e15692.

PMID: 37269156 PMC: 10238786. DOI: 10.14814/phy2.15692.


References
1.
Gerasimenko Y, Lu D, Modaber M, Zdunowski S, Gad P, Sayenko D . Noninvasive Reactivation of Motor Descending Control after Paralysis. J Neurotrauma. 2015; 32(24):1968-80. PMC: 4677519. DOI: 10.1089/neu.2015.4008. View

2.
Hofstoetter U, Krenn M, Danner S, Hofer C, Kern H, McKay W . Augmentation of Voluntary Locomotor Activity by Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation in Motor-Incomplete Spinal Cord-Injured Individuals. Artif Organs. 2015; 39(10):E176-86. DOI: 10.1111/aor.12615. View

3.
Sasaki A, de Freitas R, Sayenko D, Masugi Y, Nomura T, Nakazawa K . Low-Intensity and Short-Duration Continuous Cervical Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation Intervention Does Not Prime the Corticospinal and Spinal Reflex Pathways in Able-Bodied Subjects. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(16). PMC: 8397025. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10163633. View

4.
Krenn M, Toth A, Danner S, Hofstoetter U, Minassian K, Mayr W . Selectivity of transcutaneous stimulation of lumbar posterior roots at different spinal levels in humans. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2013; 58 Suppl 1. DOI: 10.1515/bmt-2013-4010. View

5.
Karamian B, Siegel N, Nourie B, Serruya M, Heary R, Harrop J . The role of electrical stimulation for rehabilitation and regeneration after spinal cord injury. J Orthop Traumatol. 2022; 23(1):2. PMC: 8738840. DOI: 10.1186/s10195-021-00623-6. View