4.6 Article

Preserved somatosensory conduction in complete spinal cord injury: Discomplete SCI

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 131, 期 5, 页码 1059-1067

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2020.01.017

关键词

Spinal cord injury; Functional MRI; Somatosensory; Discomplete; Non-conscious

资金

  1. foundation Promobilia
  2. Umea University
  3. Umea center for Functional Brain Imaging
  4. Vasterbottens Lans Landsting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Spinal cord injury (SCI) disrupts the communication between brain and body parts innervated from below-injury spinal segments, but rarely results in complete anatomical transection of the spinal cord. The aim of this study was to investigate residual somatosensory conduction in clinically complete SCI, to corroborate the concept of sensory discomplete SCI. Methods: We used fMRI with a somatosensory protocol in which blinded and randomized tactile and nociceptive stimulation was applied on both legs (below-injury level) and one arm (above-injury level) in eleven participants with chronic complete SCI. The experimental design accounts for possible confounding mechanical (e.g. vibration) and cortico-cortical top-down mechanisms (e.g. attention/expectation). Results: Somatosensory stimulation on below-level insensate body regions activated the somatotopically corresponding part of the contralateral primary somatosensory cortex in six out of eleven participants. Conclusions: Our results represent afferent-driven cortical activation through preserved somatosensory connections to the brain in a subgroup of participants with clinically complete SCI, i.e. sensory discomplete SCI. Significance: Identifying patients with residual somatosensory connections might open the door for new rehabilitative and restorative strategies as well as inform research on SCI-related conditions such as neuropathic pain and spasticity. (C) 2020 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据