Design of a Novel Paired Associative Nerve Stimulation System and Treatment Strategy for Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Preliminary Study

Paired associative stimulation to enhance motor outcome in spinal cord injury: a systematic review of first evidence

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord injuries (SCI) often result in motor impairment and lifelong disability.

METHODS

This systematic review, conducted in agreement with PRISMA guidelines, aimed to evaluate the effects of cortico-spinal paired associative stimulation (PAS) on motor outcomes in individuals with SCI. PubMed, Scopus/EMBASE, Pedro, and Cochrane databases were consulted from inception to 2023/01/12.

RESULTS

In 1021 articles, 10 studies involving 84 patients meet the inclusion criteria, 7 case series/study, and 3 clinical trials. Despite light differences, the included studies performed a cortico-peripheral PAS using a single transcranial magnetic stimulation and high frequency electrical peripheral nerve stimulation for a consistent number of sessions (>20). All included studies reported improvement in motor outcomes recorded via clinical and/or neurophysiological assessment.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence showed an increase in motor outcomes after PAS stimulation. Indeed, both clinical and neurophysiological outcomes suggest the effectiveness of a high number of PAS sessions in chronic individuals with SCI. Due to a limited number of studies and an unsatisfactory study design, well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm the potentiality of these approaches and clarify the adequate dose-response of PAS in the SCI population.

REGISTRATION ID

The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42023485703).

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

Introduction

Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (TSCS), a non-invasive form of spinal cord stimulation, has been shown to improve motor function in individuals living with spinal cord injury (SCI). However, the effects of different types of TSCS currents including direct current (DC-TSCS), alternating current (AC-TSCS), and spinal paired stimulation on the excitability of neural pathways have not been systematically investigated. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effects of TSCS on the excitability of neural pathways in adults with non-progressive SCI at any level.

Methods

The following databases were searched from their inception until June 2022: MEDLINE ALL, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and clinical trials. A total of 4,431 abstracts were screened, and 23 articles were included.

Results

Nineteen studies used TSCS at the thoracolumbar enlargement for lower limb rehabilitation (gait & balance) and four studies used cervical TSCS for upper limb rehabilitation. Sixteen studies measured spinal excitability by reporting different outcomes including Hoffmann reflex (H-reflex), flexion reflex excitability, spinal motor evoked potentials (SMEPs), cervicomedullay evoked potentials (CMEPs), and cutaneous-input-evoked muscle response. Seven studies measured corticospinal excitability using motor evoked potentials (MEPs) induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and one study measured somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) following TSCS. Our findings indicated a decrease in the amplitude of H-reflex and long latency flexion reflex following AC-TSCS, alongside an increase in the amplitudes of SMEPs and CMEPs. Moreover, the application of the TSCS-TMS paired associative technique resulted in spinal reflex inhibition, manifested by reduced amplitudes in both the H-reflex and flexion reflex arc. In terms of corticospinal excitability, findings from 5 studies demonstrated an increase in the amplitude of MEPs linked to lower limb muscles following DC-TSCS, in addition to paired associative stimulation involving repetitive TMS on the brain and DC-TSCS on the spine. There was an observed improvement in the latency of SSEPs in a single study. Notably, the overall quality of evidence, assessed by the modified Downs and Black Quality assessment, was deemed poor.

Discussion

This review unveils the systematic evidence supporting the potential of TSCS in reshaping both spinal and supraspinal neuronal circuitries post-SCI. Yet, it underscores the critical necessity for more rigorous, high-quality investigations.

Effectiveness of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined With Transspinal Electrical Stimulation on Corticospinal Excitability for Individuals With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Study

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) and transspinal electrical stimulation (tsES) have been proposed as a novel neurostimulation modality for individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). In this study, we integrated magnetic and electrical stimulators to provide neuromodulation therapy to individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). We designed a clinical trial comprising an 8-week treatment period and a 4-week treatment-free observation period. Cortical excitability, clinical features, inertial measurement unit and surface electromyography were assessed every 4 weeks. Twelve individuals with iSCI were recruited and randomly divided into a combined therapy group, a magnetic stimulation group, an electrical stimulation group, or a sham stimulation group. The magnetic and electric stimulations provided in this study were intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) and 2.5-mA direct current (DC) stimulation, respectively. Combined therapy, which involves iTBS and transspinal DC stimulation (tsDCS), was more effective than was iTBS alone or tsDCS alone in terms of increasing corticospinal excitability. In conclusion, the effectiveness of 8-week combined therapy in increasing corticospinal excitability faded 4 weeks after the cessation of treatment. According to the results, combination of iTBS rTMS and tsDCS treatment was more effective than was iTBS rTMS alone or tsDCS alone in enhancing corticospinal excitability. Although promising, the results of this study must be validated by studies with longer interventions and larger sample sizes.