Back

Epidural versus Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation for Motor Recovery after Spinal Cord Injury: A Comparative Analysis

Bhatia, S.; de Freitas, R. M.; Kanter, J. H.; Buell, T. J.; Okonkwo, D. O.; Pirondini, E.; Prat-Ortega, G.; Capogrosso, M.; Gerszten, P. C.

2026-06-24 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.64898/2026.06.22.26356277 medRxiv
Show abstract

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating neurological injury that results in the profound loss of voluntary motor function and marked reduction in quality of life. Rehabilitation remains as the standard of care for recovery after SCI; however, it often falls short in recovering meaningful motor function. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a promising neurostimulation approach to fill this gap and recover lost voluntary motor function. Two main approaches of SCS have been designed and implemented for human use: epidural and transcutaneous SCS. Over the last two decades, several clinical studies have shown convincing evidence that both epidural and transcutaneous SCS can be used in conjunction with rehabilitation to improve motor function of individuals after SCI. Yet fundamental clinical questions remain unanswered: when should clinicians choose epidural or transcutaneous SCS, which technique provides the most durable outcomes, and for whom is each therapy best? Without these answers, widespread and meaningful adoption of either approach into clinical practice will remain limited. To address these questions, in this Review, we define the distinct therapeutic goals, intended use cases, clinical parameters, and responder profiles for both epidural and transcutaneous SCS to guide their eventual adoption into clinical practice. We found that indeed epidural and transcutaneous SCS serve distinct therapeutic roles. Epidural SCS is designed as an assistive therapy that can restore muscle activity and single joint movements immediately within one week of implantation, while transcutaneous SCS is designed as a long-term therapeutic device with cumulative functional gains observed over treatment periods of up to 18 weeks. Lastly, epidural SCS produced benefits for all participants (AIS A-D) despite the extent of their injury, while transcutaneous SCS only consistently benefits individuals with incomplete motor injuries (AIS C-D).

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Neurosurgery
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.9%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.7%
3
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
4
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.2%
5
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
6
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.5%
7
Journal of Neurotrauma
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
8
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.3%
9
Muscle & Nerve
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
10
Brain Stimulation
125 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.3%
11
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 27%
4.0%
12
Clinical Neurophysiology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
13
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
14
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.4%
15
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
16
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
17
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
18
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
19
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
20
JCI Insight
277 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
21
Experimental Brain Research
53 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
22
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
23
Journal of Medical Virology
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
27
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
28
The Cerebellum
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
29
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
30
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%