4.6 Article

Interleaved configurations of percutaneous epidural stimulation enhanced overground stepping in a person with chronic paraplegia

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1284581

关键词

spinal cord injury; rehabilitation; epidural stimulation; configurations; overground and treadmill walking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By configuring SCES leads, rhythmic lower limb activation can be initiated, enabling patients with complete spinal cord injury to achieve independent overground stepping. This is significant for the restoration of functional abilities in these patients.
Descending motor signals are disrupted after complete spinal cord injury (SCI) resulting in loss of standing and walking. We previously restored standing and trunk control in a person with a T3 complete SCI following implantation of percutaneous spinal cord epidural stimulation (SCES). We, hereby, present a step-by-step procedure on configuring the SCES leads to initiate rhythmic lower limb activation (rhythmic-SCES) resulting in independent overground stepping in parallel bars and using a standard walker. Initially, SCES was examined in supine lying at 2 Hz before initiating stepping-like activity in parallel bars using 20 or 30 Hz; however, single lead configuration (+2, -5) resulted in lower limb adduction and crossing of limbs, impairing the initiation of overground stepping. After 6 months, interleaving the original rhythmic-SCES with an additional configuration (-12, +15) on the opposite lead, resulted in a decrease of the extensive adduction tone and allowed the participant to initiate overground stepping up to 16 consecutive steps. The current paradigm suggests that interleaving two rhythmic-SCES configurations may improve the excitability of the spinal circuitry to better interpret the residual descending supraspinal signals with the ascending proprioceptive inputs, resulting in a stepping-like motor behavior after complete SCI.

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