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.
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 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Reconnecting the Hand and Arm to the Brain: Efficacy of Neural Interfaces for Sensorimotor Restoration after Tetraplegia 94%
- Deep brain stimulation improves symptoms of spasmodic dysphonia through targeting of thalamic sensorimotor connectivity 90%
- A Porcine Model of Peripheral Nerve Injury Enabling Ultra-Long Regenerative Distances: Surgical Approach, Recovery Kinetics, and Clinical Relevance 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Differential effects of theta-gamma tACS on motor skill acquisition in young individuals and stroke survivors: a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled study 94%
- Non-invasive neuromodulation using rTMS and the Electromagnetic-Perceptive Gene (EPG) facilitates plasticity after nerve injury 94%
- Human Applications of Transcranial Temporal Interference Stimulation: A Systematic Review 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Using remotely delivered Spring Forest Qigong™ to reduce neuropathic pain in adults with spinal cord injury: A non-randomized controlled trial 93%
- Decoding hand and wrist movement intention from chronic stroke survivors with hemiparesis using a wearable neural interface 91%
- Motivational Strategies for Stroke Rehabilitation: A Delphi Study 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Upper Limb Motor Improvement after TBI: Systematic Review of Interventions 92%
- Comparing a novel neuroanimation experience to conventional therapy for high-dose, intensive upper-limb training in subacute stroke: The SMARTS2 randomized trial 92%
- The detrimental effect of stroke on motor adaptation 91%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.