Electrical Stimulation for Spinal Cord Injury
Recruiting in Palo Alto (17 mi)
Age: 18+
Sex: Any
Travel: May Be Covered
Time Reimbursement: Varies
Trial Phase: Academic
Recruiting
Sponsor: Shirley Ryan AbilityLab
Must not be taking: Antipsychotics, Tricyclic antidepressants
Disqualifiers: Pulmonary, Cardiovascular, Orthopedic, others
No Placebo Group
Trial Summary
What is the purpose of this trial?
This trial uses electrical stimulation techniques to help patients with partial spinal cord injuries improve their arm and hand movements. The treatment works by enhancing the timing and coordination of nerve signals, making it easier for the brain and spinal cord to control muscles. Electrical stimulation of the spinal cord has been practiced as a therapy by the medical community for a long time.
Will I have to stop taking my current medications?
The trial requires that you do not take medications that affect the central nervous system and lower the seizure threshold, such as certain antipsychotic drugs and tricyclic antidepressants.
What data supports the effectiveness of the treatment 'Electrical Stimulation for Spinal Cord Injury'?
Electrophysiological techniques, which are part of the treatment, can help predict functional outcomes in spinal cord injury patients, such as walking ability and hand function, by assessing nerve responses. These techniques are valuable in planning rehabilitation and selecting appropriate therapies, suggesting they may support recovery when used as part of a treatment plan.12345
Is electrical stimulation for spinal cord injury generally safe in humans?
How does electrical stimulation differ from other treatments for spinal cord injury?
Electrical stimulation for spinal cord injury is unique because it uses electrical currents to activate the spinal cord's neural circuits, potentially restoring motor functions even after paralysis. Unlike other treatments, it involves implanting electrodes to target specific spinal cord regions, enabling intentional control of movements, which is not typically possible with standard therapies.1261011
Eligibility Criteria
This trial is for adults aged 18-85 with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI) at C8 or above, who can still perform certain reach and grasp movements. It's also open to right-handed healthy controls without SCI but with similar abilities. Pregnant women, individuals with metal in the skull, seizure history, severe medical issues, depression/psychosis, head injury/stroke history, pacemakers or those on specific CNS drugs are excluded.Inclusion Criteria
I am between 18-85 years old, right-handed, and can reach and grasp objects without leaning forward.
I am between 18-85 years old with a spinal cord injury at C8 or above, and can still move my hands.
Exclusion Criteria
Pacemaker
I have a history of seizures.
I do not have unmanaged lung, heart, or bone problems.
See 8 more
Trial Timeline
Screening
Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial
2-4 weeks
Electrophysiology Assessment
Assessment of electrophysiology in the time and spatial domains to examine corticospinal function
5 months
Training with Stimulation
Training with non-invasive stimulation and sham stimulation to promote recovery of function
5 months
Follow-up
Participants are monitored for safety and effectiveness after treatment
4 weeks
Treatment Details
Interventions
- Electrophysiology Assessment of Location (Other)
- Electrophysiology Assessment of Time Domain (Corticosteroid)
- Training with some stimulation (Other)
Trial OverviewThe study aims to improve motor function in people with SCI using advanced electrophysiological methods to test corticospinal connections. Participants will undergo assessments of muscle response timing and location plus training that includes some form of stimulation focused on enhancing reach and grasp movements.
Participant Groups
3Treatment groups
Experimental Treatment
Active Control
Group I: Electrophysiology Assessment of Time DomainExperimental Treatment2 Interventions
Assessment of electrophysiology in the time domain to examin temporal organization of corticospinal function
Group II: Electrophysiology Assessment of LocationExperimental Treatment2 Interventions
Assessment of electrophysiology to examine spatial organization of corticospinal function
Group III: Training with some stimulationActive Control1 Intervention
Training with non-invasive stimulation and training with sham stimulation
Find a Clinic Near You
Research Locations NearbySelect from list below to view details:
Shirley Ryan AbilityLabChicago, IL
Loading ...
Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?
Shirley Ryan AbilityLabLead Sponsor
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)Collaborator
References
Electrophysiological Outcome Measures in Spinal Cord Injury Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review. [2020]Background: Electrophysiological measures are being increasingly utilized due to their ability to provide objective measurements with minimal bias and to detect subtle changes with quantitative data on neural function. Heterogeneous reporting of trial outcomes limits effective interstudy comparison and optimization of treatment. Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to describe the reporting of electrophysiological outcome measures in spinal cord injury (SCI) clinical trials in order to inform a subsequent consensus study. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Adult human SCI clinical trials published in English between January 1, 2008 and September 15, 2018 with at least one electrophysiological outcome measure were eligible. Findings were reviewed by all authors to create a synthesis narrative describing each outcome measure. Results: Sixty-four SCI clinical trials were included in this review. Identified electrophysiological outcomes included electromyography activity (44%), motor evoked potentials (33%), somatosensory evoked potentials (33%), H-reflex (20%), reflex electromyography activity (11%), nerve conduction studies (9%), silent period (3%), contact heat evoked potentials (2%), and sympathetic skin response (2%). Heterogeneity was present in regard to both methods of measurement and reporting of electrophysiological outcome measures. Conclusion: This review demonstrates need for the development of a standardized reporting set for electrophysiological outcome measures. Limitations of this review include exclusion of non-English publications, studies more than 10 years old, and an inability to assess methodological quality of primary studies due to a lack of guidelines on reporting of systematic reviews of outcome measures.
[Prognosis of traumatic spinal cord lesions. Significance of clinical and electrophysiological findings]. [2019]The clinical examination of patients with spinal cord injury can be supplemented by electrophysiological techniques (somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP), motor-evoked potentials (MEP), electroneurography) to assess the extent and severity of a spinal cord injury. As essential advantage of these techniques in comparison with the clinical examination is that they can be reliably applied even in uncooperative patients. These techniques allow an early prognosis of the functional deficit in patients with acute spinal cord injury. Recordings of tibial nerve SSEP and MEP of the anterior tibial muscle allow to predict the outcome of ambulatory capacity, while recordings of pudendal nerve SSEP allow prognosis of the bladder function to be assessed. In tetraplegic patients median and ulnar nerve SSEP and MEP of the abductor digiti minimi muscle can indicate the development of hand function. Electroneurography allows to differentiate between the proportion of peripheral and central nervous lesions underlying the muscle paresis. This is of prognostic value with regard to the development of muscle tone and consequently for planning therapy. The electrophysiological examinations are of complementary value in the diagnostic assessment of spinal cord lesions, in the prediction of functional outcome, and in monitoring the course of neurological deficits. This is helpful for planning and selection of appropriate therapeutic approaches (e.g. functional electrical stimulation, application of botulinum toxin, splinting procedures) within the rehabilitation programme.
[Neurological diagnosis and prognosis: significance of neurophysiological findings in traumatic spinal cord lesions]. [2006]The clinical examination of patients with spinal cord injury can be supplemented by electrophysiological techniques (somatosensory evoked potentials [SSEP], motor evoked potentials [MEP], and electroneuromyographic recordings [ENMG]) to assess the extent and severity of a spinal cord injury. An essential advantage of these techniques in comparison with clinical examination is that they can also be reliably applied in uncooperative patients. These techniques allow early prognosis regarding the functional deficit in patients with acute spinal cord injury. Recordings of tibial nerve somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials of the anterior tibial muscle serve to predict the outcome of ambulatory capacity, and pudendal nerve somatosensory evoked potentials that of bladder function. In tetraplegic patients median and ulnar nerve somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials of the abductor digiti min. muscle may indicate the outcome of hand function at an early stage. The electroneuromyographic recordings make it possible to differentiate between the proportion of peripheral and central nervous lesion underlying a muscle paresis. This is of prognostic value in regard to the development of muscle tone and consequently for planning of therapy. The electrophysiological examinations are of complementary value in the diagnostic assessment of spinal cord lesions, in the prediction of functional outcome, and in monitoring the course of neurological deficits. This is helpful for planning and selection of appropriate therapeutic approaches within the rehabilitation programme.
Upper Limb Recovery in Spinal Cord Injury: Involvement of Central and Peripheral Motor Pathways. [2017]The course of central and peripheral motor recovery after cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) may be investigated by electrophysiological measures. The goal of this study was to compare the 2 over the first year after injury in relation to motor gains.
Electrophysiological evaluation of root and spinal cord disease. [2005]The electrophysiological evaluation of root or spinal cord disease is complementary to neuroimaging studies, providing information about functional rather than anatomical integrity and information that is important for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. The electrophysiological findings help to localize a lesion but are not pathognomonic of specific diseases. The findings may also provide insight into underlying physiological mechanisms that have been disrupted. A number of different electrophysiological techniques are now in widespread use. Each of these techniques provides different information and thus has distinct utility and limitations. The optimal evaluation of patients with root or spinal cord disease requires an understanding of how these techniques complement each other and depends on the individual clinical problem for which electrophysiological assessment is requested.
Compensation for injury potential by electrical stimulation after acute spinal cord injury in rat. [2020]Injury potential, a direct current potential difference between normal section and the site of injury, is a significant index of spinal cord injury. However, its importance has been ignored in the studies of spinal cord electrophysiology and electrical stimulation (ES). In this paper, compensation for injury potential is used as a criterion to adjust the intensity of stimulation. Injury potential is modulated to slightly larger than 0 mV for 15, 30 and 45 minutes immediately after injury by placing the anodes at the site of injury and the cathodes at the rostral and caudal section. Injury potentials of all rats were recorded for statistical analysis. Results show that the injury potentials acquired after ES are higher than those measured from rats without stimulation and much lower than the initial amplitude. It is also observed that the stimulating voltage to keep injury potential be 0 remain the same. This phenomenon suggests that repair of membrane might occur during the period of stimulation. It is also suggested that a constant voltage stimulation can be applied to compensate for injury potential.
The application of electrophysiological methods to characterize AMPA receptors in dissociated adult rat and non-human primate cerebellar neurons for use in neuronal safety pharmacology assessments of the central nervous system. [2021]Pre-clinically, safety risk assessment of a drug is primarily tested in vivo using functional evaluation of adult animals while the mechanistic etiology of drug-induced CNS adverse effects is often uncharacterized. In vitro electrophysiology may provide a better understanding of drug effects without additional animal use. However, in vitro protocols are typically designed for using embryonic or juvenile animals.
Electrophysiological evaluation of the patient with acute spinal cord injury. [2005]This article reviews basic principles, equipment and techniques, and clinical applications of electrophysiologic monitoring in patients with spinal cord injuries. Four groups of electrophysiologic measurements are considered: Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs); motor evoked potentials (MEPs); electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction studies; and late responses, including H reflex, M response, and F wave. Reports of SEP recordings in spinal cord injury, as drawn from the literature, are tabulated in detail.
Characterization of graded multicenter animal spinal cord injury study contusion spinal cord injury using somatosensory-evoked potentials. [2021]Electrophysiological analysis using somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) and behavioral assessment using Basso, Beattie, Bresnahan (BBB) scale were compared over time for graded Multicenter Animal Spinal Cord Injury Study (MASCIS) contusion spinal cord injury (SCI).
Spinal cord stimulation as a tool for physiological research. [2019]The use of spinal cord stimulation for alleviation of disabilities due to motor neuron lesions has provided the opportunity to explore a new approach to measurement of spinal cord physiology. Externalized leads of epidural electrodes provide the possibility of recording evoked spinal cord activity, while both externalized or implanted leads can be used to study cortical evoked responses and twitches induced by spinal cord stimulation. The use of such electrophysiological techniques can be expected to expand greatly the applicability of the technique for alleviating motor disabilities, through a better definition of the degree, nature and extent of the lesion.
Electrophysiological Guidance of Epidural Electrode Array Implantation over the Human Lumbosacral Spinal Cord to Enable Motor Function after Chronic Paralysis. [2020]Epidural electrical stimulation (EES) of the spinal cord has been shown to restore function after spinal cord injury (SCI). Characterization of EES-evoked motor responses has provided a basic understanding of spinal sensorimotor network activity related to EES-enabled motor activity of the lower extremities. However, the use of EES-evoked motor responses to guide EES system implantation over the spinal cord and their relation to post-operative EES-enabled function in humans with chronic paralysis attributed to SCI has yet to be described. Herein, we describe the surgical and intraoperative electrophysiological approach used, followed by initial EES-enabled results observed in 2 human subjects with motor complete paralysis who were enrolled in a clinical trial investigating the use of EES to enable motor functions after SCI. The 16-contact electrode array was initially positioned under fluoroscopic guidance. Then, EES-evoked motor responses were recorded from select leg muscles and displayed in real time to determine electrode array proximity to spinal cord regions associated with motor activity of the lower extremities. Acceptable array positioning was determined based on achievement of selective proximal or distal leg muscle activity, as well as bilateral muscle activation. Motor response latencies were not significantly different between intraoperative recordings and post-operative recordings, indicating that array positioning remained stable. Additionally, EES enabled intentional control of step-like activity in both subjects within the first 5 days of testing. These results suggest that the use of EES-evoked motor responses may guide intraoperative positioning of epidural electrodes to target spinal cord circuitry to enable motor functions after SCI.