A pilot study examining the impact of electrode configuration in transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in spinal cord injury

Abstract

Study design

Prospective trial.

Objective

To evaluate the impact on muscle activation of different anatomical configurations of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation electrodes amongst SCI and control patients.

Summary of background data

Spinal cord stimulation has garnered increased attention as a promising treatment for spinal cord injury (SCI). However, existing studies on transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation consist of highly variable methodologies and lack standard protocols.

Methods

Two adult SCI participants (PS01—T12 AIS D, and PS02—T2 AIS B) and two healthy adult controls (PS03, and PS04) were prospectively enrolled after IRB approval. Electromyography was used to record activity in the bilateral tibialis anterior (TA) and biceps femoris (BF). Four electrode configurations were trialed—cathode placement only at T11-T12 (montage T11-T12) versus combined configurations with cathodes at T11-T12 and at L1-L2, L3-L4, or S1-S2; anode placement was always at the bilateral iliac crests. Motor response was defined as EMG change >20 μV, as defined in the literature.

Results

SCI participants exhibited overall decreased motor responses compared to controls, other than PS01 at the T11-T12 montage. The majority of motor responses from SCI participants did not meet the 20 µV threshold, and did not show the same consistent cranial to caudal pattern. PS01’s highest response was at T11-T12/L1-L2 (BF: 265.52 µV), whereas PS02 was highest at T11-T12 (TA: 39.73 µV). Overall, the motor response from the motor complete SCI (PS02—T2 AIS B) was substantially less than the motor response from the motor and sensory incomplete SCI.

Conclusion

When performing transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation, the magnitude of motor response appears to vary with both the exact anatomical electrode configuration and the presence/severity of SCI. SCI participants demonstrated generally decreased motor responses, and a less predictable topographic pattern. Further work is needed to determine the ideal electrode configurations for different patients and spinal cord injury types.

Keywords

transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation neuromodulation neurorestoration functional electrical stimulation neuromuscular electrical stimulation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Sekhon

LHS

Fehlings

. Epidemiology, demographics, and pathophysiology of acute spinal cord injury. Spine 2001; 26(24S): S2–S12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200112151-00002

DeVivo

. Epidemiology of traumatic spinal cord injury: trends and future implications. Spinal Cord 2012; 50(5): 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2011.178

Smith

Fitzpatrick

Lyons

, et al. Epidemiology of non-traumatic spinal cord injury in Ireland - a prospective population-based study. J Spinal Cord Med 2022; 45(1): 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2020.1762829

Barbiellini Amidei

Salmaso

Bellio

, et al. Epidemiology of traumatic spinal cord injury: a large population-based study. Spinal Cord 2022; 60(9): 812–819. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-022-00795-w

Gedde

Lilleberg

Aßmus

, et al. Traumatic vs non-traumatic spinal cord injury: a comparison of primary rehabilitation outcomes and complications during hospitalization. J Spinal Cord Med 2019; 42(6): 695–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2019.1598698

Quadri

Farooqui

Ikram

, et al. Recent update on basic mechanisms of spinal cord injury. Neurosurg Rev 2020; 43(2): 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-018-1008-3

Tresch

Bizzi

. Responses to spinal microstimulation in the chronically spinalized rat and their relationship to spinal systems activated by low threshold cutaneous stimulation. Exp Brain Res 1999; 129(3): 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050908

Mushahwar

Horch

. Selective activation of muscle groups in the feline hindlimb through electrical microstimulation of the ventral lumbo-sacral spinal cord. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 2000; 8(1): 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/86.830944

Dimitrijevic

Gerasimenko

Pinter

. Evidence for a spinal central pattern generator in humansa. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1998; 860(1): 360–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb09062.x

10.

Harkema

Gerasimenko

Hodes

, et al. Effect of epidural stimulation of the lumbosacral spinal cord on voluntary movement, standing, and assisted stepping after motor complete paraplegia: a case study. Lancet 2011; 377(9781): 1938–1947. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60547-3

11.

Rahman

Tharu

Gustin

, et al. Trans-spinal electrical stimulation therapy for functional rehabilitation after spinal cord injury: review. J Clin Med 2022; 11(6): 1550. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061550

12.

Rehman

Sneed

Sutor

, et al. Optimization of transspinal stimulation applications for motor recovery after spinal cord injury: scoping review. J Clin Med 2023; 12(3): 854. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030854

13.

Taylor

McHugh

Mockler

, et al. Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation and motor responses in individuals with spinal cord injury: a methodological review. PLoS One 2021; 16(11): e0260166. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260166

14.

Calvert

Gill

Linde

, et al. Voluntary modulation of evoked responses generated by epidural and transcutaneous spinal stimulation in humans with spinal cord injury. J Clin Med 2021; 10(21): 4898. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214898

15.

Gerasimenko

Gorodnichev

Moshonkina

, et al. Transcutaneous electrical spinal-cord stimulation in humans. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2015; 58(4): 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2015.05.003

16.

Bakkum

. Chapter 1 - surface anatomy of the back and vertebral levels of clinically important structures. In: Cramer

Darby

(eds). Clinical anatomy of the spine, spinal cord, and ans. 3rd ed. Mosby, 2014, pp. 1–14.

17.

Megía García

Serrano-Muñoz

Taylor

, et al. Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation and motor rehabilitation in spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Neurorehabilitation Neural Repair 2020/01/01 2019; 34(1): 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968319893298