Cargando…
Spinal cord epidural stimulation for motor and autonomic function recovery after chronic spinal cord injury: A case series and technical note
BACKGROUND: Traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) is a debilitating condition, leading to chronic morbidity and mortality. In recent peer-reviewed studies, spinal cord epidural stimulation (scES) enabled voluntary movement and return of over-ground walking in a small number of patients with motor comp...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Scientific Scholar
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10070319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37025529 http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_1074_2022 |
_version_ | 1785019000662523904 |
---|---|
author | Boakye, Maxwell Ball, Tyler Dietz, Nicholas Sharma, Mayur Angeli, Claudia Rejc, Enrico Kirshblum, Steven Forrest, Gail Arnold, Forest W. Harkema, Susan |
author_facet | Boakye, Maxwell Ball, Tyler Dietz, Nicholas Sharma, Mayur Angeli, Claudia Rejc, Enrico Kirshblum, Steven Forrest, Gail Arnold, Forest W. Harkema, Susan |
author_sort | Boakye, Maxwell |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) is a debilitating condition, leading to chronic morbidity and mortality. In recent peer-reviewed studies, spinal cord epidural stimulation (scES) enabled voluntary movement and return of over-ground walking in a small number of patients with motor complete SCI. Using the most extensive case series (n = 25) for chronic SCI, the present report describes our motor and cardiovascular and functional outcomes, surgical and training complication rates, quality of life (QOL) improvements, and patient satisfaction results after scES. METHODS: This prospective study occurred at the University of Louisville from 2009 to 2020. scES interventions began 2–3 weeks after surgical implantation of the scES device. Perioperative complications were recorded as well as long-term complications during training and device related events. QOL outcomes and patient satisfaction were evaluated using the impairment domains model and a global patient satisfaction scale, respectively. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (80% male, mean age of 30.9 ± 9.4 years) with chronic motor complete tSCI underwent scES using an epidural paddle electrode and internal pulse generator. The interval from SCI to scES implantation was 5.9 ± 3.4 years. Two participants (8%) developed infections, and three additional patients required washouts (12%). All participants achieved voluntary movement after implantation. A total of 17 research participants (85%) reported that the procedure either met (n = 9) or exceeded (n = 8) their expectations, and 100% would undergo the operation again. CONCLUSION: scES in this series was safe and achieved numerous benefits on motor and cardiovascular regulation and improved patient-reported QOL in multiple domains, with a high degree of patient satisfaction. The multiple previously unreported benefits beyond improvements in motor function render scES a promising option for improving QOL after motor complete SCI. Further studies may quantify these other benefits and clarify scES’s role in SCI patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10070319 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Scientific Scholar |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100703192023-04-05 Spinal cord epidural stimulation for motor and autonomic function recovery after chronic spinal cord injury: A case series and technical note Boakye, Maxwell Ball, Tyler Dietz, Nicholas Sharma, Mayur Angeli, Claudia Rejc, Enrico Kirshblum, Steven Forrest, Gail Arnold, Forest W. Harkema, Susan Surg Neurol Int Original Article BACKGROUND: Traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) is a debilitating condition, leading to chronic morbidity and mortality. In recent peer-reviewed studies, spinal cord epidural stimulation (scES) enabled voluntary movement and return of over-ground walking in a small number of patients with motor complete SCI. Using the most extensive case series (n = 25) for chronic SCI, the present report describes our motor and cardiovascular and functional outcomes, surgical and training complication rates, quality of life (QOL) improvements, and patient satisfaction results after scES. METHODS: This prospective study occurred at the University of Louisville from 2009 to 2020. scES interventions began 2–3 weeks after surgical implantation of the scES device. Perioperative complications were recorded as well as long-term complications during training and device related events. QOL outcomes and patient satisfaction were evaluated using the impairment domains model and a global patient satisfaction scale, respectively. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (80% male, mean age of 30.9 ± 9.4 years) with chronic motor complete tSCI underwent scES using an epidural paddle electrode and internal pulse generator. The interval from SCI to scES implantation was 5.9 ± 3.4 years. Two participants (8%) developed infections, and three additional patients required washouts (12%). All participants achieved voluntary movement after implantation. A total of 17 research participants (85%) reported that the procedure either met (n = 9) or exceeded (n = 8) their expectations, and 100% would undergo the operation again. CONCLUSION: scES in this series was safe and achieved numerous benefits on motor and cardiovascular regulation and improved patient-reported QOL in multiple domains, with a high degree of patient satisfaction. The multiple previously unreported benefits beyond improvements in motor function render scES a promising option for improving QOL after motor complete SCI. Further studies may quantify these other benefits and clarify scES’s role in SCI patients. Scientific Scholar 2023-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10070319/ /pubmed/37025529 http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_1074_2022 Text en Copyright: © 2023 Surgical Neurology International https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Boakye, Maxwell Ball, Tyler Dietz, Nicholas Sharma, Mayur Angeli, Claudia Rejc, Enrico Kirshblum, Steven Forrest, Gail Arnold, Forest W. Harkema, Susan Spinal cord epidural stimulation for motor and autonomic function recovery after chronic spinal cord injury: A case series and technical note |
title | Spinal cord epidural stimulation for motor and autonomic function recovery after chronic spinal cord injury: A case series and technical note |
title_full | Spinal cord epidural stimulation for motor and autonomic function recovery after chronic spinal cord injury: A case series and technical note |
title_fullStr | Spinal cord epidural stimulation for motor and autonomic function recovery after chronic spinal cord injury: A case series and technical note |
title_full_unstemmed | Spinal cord epidural stimulation for motor and autonomic function recovery after chronic spinal cord injury: A case series and technical note |
title_short | Spinal cord epidural stimulation for motor and autonomic function recovery after chronic spinal cord injury: A case series and technical note |
title_sort | spinal cord epidural stimulation for motor and autonomic function recovery after chronic spinal cord injury: a case series and technical note |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10070319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37025529 http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_1074_2022 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT boakyemaxwell spinalcordepiduralstimulationformotorandautonomicfunctionrecoveryafterchronicspinalcordinjuryacaseseriesandtechnicalnote AT balltyler spinalcordepiduralstimulationformotorandautonomicfunctionrecoveryafterchronicspinalcordinjuryacaseseriesandtechnicalnote AT dietznicholas spinalcordepiduralstimulationformotorandautonomicfunctionrecoveryafterchronicspinalcordinjuryacaseseriesandtechnicalnote AT sharmamayur spinalcordepiduralstimulationformotorandautonomicfunctionrecoveryafterchronicspinalcordinjuryacaseseriesandtechnicalnote AT angeliclaudia spinalcordepiduralstimulationformotorandautonomicfunctionrecoveryafterchronicspinalcordinjuryacaseseriesandtechnicalnote AT rejcenrico spinalcordepiduralstimulationformotorandautonomicfunctionrecoveryafterchronicspinalcordinjuryacaseseriesandtechnicalnote AT kirshblumsteven spinalcordepiduralstimulationformotorandautonomicfunctionrecoveryafterchronicspinalcordinjuryacaseseriesandtechnicalnote AT forrestgail spinalcordepiduralstimulationformotorandautonomicfunctionrecoveryafterchronicspinalcordinjuryacaseseriesandtechnicalnote AT arnoldforestw spinalcordepiduralstimulationformotorandautonomicfunctionrecoveryafterchronicspinalcordinjuryacaseseriesandtechnicalnote AT harkemasusan spinalcordepiduralstimulationformotorandautonomicfunctionrecoveryafterchronicspinalcordinjuryacaseseriesandtechnicalnote |