Search

Introduction: Millions of people worldwide suffer with spasticity related to irreversible damage to the brain or spinal cord. Typical antecedent events include stroke, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury, although insidious onset is also common. Regardless of the cause, the resulting spasticity leads to years of disability and reduced quality of life. Many treatments are available to manage spasticity; yet each is fraught with drawbacks including incomplete response, high cost, limited duration, dose-limiting side effects, and periodic maintenance. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), a once promising therapy for spasticity, has largely been relegated to permanent experimental status., Methods: In this review, our goal is to document and critique the history and assess the development of SCS as a treatment of lower limb spasticity. By incorporating recent discoveries with the insights gained from the early pioneers in this field, we intend to lay the groundwork needed to propose testable hypotheses for future studies., Results: SCS has been tested in over 25 different conditions since a potentially beneficial effect was first reported in 1973. However, the lack of a fully formed understanding of the pathophysiology of spasticity, archaic study methodology, and the early technological limitations of implantable hardware limit the validity of many studies. SCS offers a measure of control for spasticity that cannot be duplicated with other interventions., Conclusions: With improved energy-source miniaturization, tailored control algorithms, novel implant design, and a clearer picture of the pathophysiology of spasticity, we are poised to reintroduce and test SCS in this population., (© 2017 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Background: We report a unique finding of a patient whose restless legs syndrome (RLS) symptoms abated after the placement of a spinal cord stimulator for chronic neuropathic pain. RLS is a common disorder, with many patients unable to find sufficient relief from their symptoms., Case Description: A patient diagnosed with neuropathic pain who also suffered from RLS symptoms despite medication therapy underwent implantation of a spinal cord stimulator after a successful trial. This patient was interviewed formally about his RLS symptoms immediately before his procedure and at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 2.5 years after the procedure. The patient also completed the International Restless Legs Syndrome Scale questionnaire to objectively quantify the severity of his symptoms. Finally, the patient kept a 5-day journal detailing when the stimulator was in use. The patient reported subjective symptomatic improvement in his RLS symptoms with improved sleep quality and quantity, in addition to improvement in his back pain. The patient's score on the International Restless Legs Syndrome Scale improved after implantation from 33 to 0 on a 40-point scale. Moreover, when asked to keep a journal record of his stimulator use, the patient noted that he only used the stimulator before going to bed to help his RLS symptoms and no longer required any medication for his previous RLS symptoms., Conclusions: Epidural stimulation may be an additional, alternative, or novel therapy in the treatment of RLS., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Compare therapeutic response of patients to conventional versus high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS)., Methods: Twelve patients with back and leg pain who met standard clinical criteria for a trial of conventional SCS (low-frequency stimulation [LFS]) participated in a half-day session of high-frequency stimulation (HFS) during their weeklong conventional trial. HFS consisted of frequencies ranging from 50 Hz to 4 kHz, or 100 Hz to10 kHz, at constant voltage settings increasing from 0.5 V to 10 V. Visual Analog Scale scores from 0 to10 were recorded, along with notes of any clinical discomfort and open patient comments., Results: Two of 12 patients had no benefit from either LFS or HFS. In the remaining 10 patients, paresthesias were significantly altered by HFS, and four experienced complete elimination of paresthesias. Five patients preferred HFS to LFS, with an additional three preferring both equally. Abrupt sensation to the onset of HFS was described in six patients, and in ten patients, HFS allowed maximum voltage stimulation of 10 V without discomfort. The four patients who did not have a successful trial of stimulation had significantly longer duration of pain compared to the eight patients who went on to permanent implant (11.2 vs. 4.3 years, P = 0.04)., Conclusions: HFS significantly altered the feeling of paresthesias in the majority of patients (ten of 12), was preferred to LFS in five of 12 patients, and non-inferior to LFS in eight of 12 patients. Both 4 kHz and 10 kHz stimulation allowed patients to benefit from HFS. HFS allowed maximum voltage stimulation without discomfort., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Spinal cord stimulation currently relies on extradural electrode arrays that are separated from the spinal cord surface by a highly conducting layer of cerebrospinal fluid. It has recently been suggested that intradural placement of the electrodes in direct contact with the pial surface could greatly enhance the specificity and efficiency of stimulation. The present computational study aims at quantifying and comparing the electrical current distributions as well as the spatial recruitment profiles resulting from extra- and intra-dural electrode arrangements. The electrical potential distribution is calculated using a 3D finite element model of the human thoracic spinal canal. The likely recruitment areas are then obtained using the potential as input to an equivalent circuit model of the pre-threshold axonal response. The results show that the current threshold to recruitment of axons in the dorsal column is more than an order of magnitude smaller for intradural than extradural stimulation. Intradural placement of the electrodes also leads to much higher contrast between the stimulation thresholds for the dorsal root entry zone and the dorsal column, allowing better focusing of the stimulus.

The efficacy of spinal cord stimulators is dependent on the ability of the device to functionally activate targeted structures within the spinal cord, while avoiding activation of near-by non-targeted structures. In theory, these objectives can best be achieved by delivering electrical stimuli directly to the surface of the spinal cord. The current experiments were performed to study the influence of different stimulating electrode positions on patterns of spinal cord electrophysiological activation. A custom-designed spinal cord neurostimulator was used to investigate the effects of lead position and stimulus amplitude on cortical electrophysiological responses to spinal cord stimulation. Brain recordings were obtained from subdural grids placed in four adult sheep. We systematically varied the position of the stimulating lead relative to the spinal cord and the voltage delivered by the device at each position, and then examined how these variables influenced cortical responses. A clear relationship was observed between voltage and electrode position, and the magnitude of high gamma-band oscillations. Direct stimulation of the dorsal column contralateral to the grid required the lowest voltage to evoke brain responses to spinal cord stimulation. Given the lower voltage thresholds associated with direct stimulation of the dorsal column, and its possible impact on the therapeutic window, this intradural modality may have particular clinical advantages over standard epidural techniques now in routine use.

We describe a novel spinal cord (SC) stimulator that is designed to overcome a major shortcoming of existing stimulator devices: their restricted capacity to selectively activate targeted axons within the dorsal columns. This device overcomes that limitation by delivering electrical stimuli directly to the pial surface of the SC. Our goal in testing this device was to measure its ability to physiologically activate the SC and examine its capacity to modulate somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) triggered by peripheral stimulation. In this acute study on adult sheep (n = 7), local field potentials were recorded from a grid placed in the subdural space of the right hemisphere during electrical stimulation of the left tibial nerve and the spinal cord. Large amplitude SSEPs (>200 µV) in response to SC stimulation were consistently obtained at stimulation strengths well below the thresholds inducing neural injury. Moreover, stimulation of the dorsal columns with signals employed routinely by devices in standard clinical use, e.g., 50 Hz, 0.2 ms pulse width, produced long-lasting changes (>4.5 h) in the SSEP patterns produced by subsequent tibial nerve stimulation. The results of these acute experiments demonstrate that this device can be safely secured to the SC surface and effectively activate somatosensory pathways.

New Findings: What is the central question of this research? Does acute spinal cord stimulation increase vascular conductance and decrease muscle sympathetic nerve activity in the lower limbs of humans? What is the main finding and its importance? Acute spinal cord stimulation led to a rapid rise in femoral vascular conductance, and peroneal muscle sympathetic nerve activity demonstrated a delayed reduction that was not associated with the initial increase in femoral vascular conductance. These findings suggest that neural mechanisms in addition to attenuated muscle sympathetic nerve activity might be involved in the initial increase in femoral vascular conductance during acute spinal cord stimulation. Abstract: Clinical cases have indicated an increase in peripheral blood flow after continuous epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and that reduced muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) might be a potential mechanism. However, no studies in humans have directly examined the effects of acute SCS (<60 min) on vascular conductance and MSNA. In study 1, we tested the hypothesis that acute SCS (<60 min) of the thoracic spine would lead to increased common femoral vascular conductance, but not brachial vascular conductance, in 11 patients who previously underwent surgical SCS implantation for management of neuropathic pain. Throughout 60 min of SCS, common femoral artery conductance was elevated and significantly different from brachial artery conductance [in millilitres per minute: 15 min, change (Δ) 26 ± 37 versus Δ−2 ± 19%; 30 min, Δ28 ± 45 versus Δ0 ± 26%; 45 min, Δ48 ± 43 versus Δ2 ± 21%; 60 min, Δ36 ± 61 versus Δ1 ± 24%; and 15 min post‐SCS, Δ51 ± 64 versus Δ6 ± 33%; P = 0.013]. A similar examination in a patient with cervical SCS revealed minimal changes in vascular conductance. In study 2, we examined whether acute SCS reduces peroneal MSNA in a subset of SCS patients (n = 5). The MSNA burst incidence in response to acute SCS gradually declined and was significantly reduced at 45 and 60 min of SCS (in bursts per 100 heart beats: 15 min, Δ−1 ± 12%; 30 min, Δ−14 ± 12%; 45 min, Δ−19 ± 16%; 60 min, Δ−24 ± 18%; and 15 min post‐SCS: Δ−11 ± 7%; P = 0.015). These data demonstrate that acute SCS rapidly increases femoral vascular conductance and reduces peroneal MSNA. The gradual reduction in peroneal MSNA observed during acute SCS suggests that neural mechanisms in addition to attenuated MSNA might be involved in the acute increase in femoral vascular conductance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is becoming increasingly important to understand the mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in alleviating neuropathic pain as novel stimulation paradigms arise. Purpose: Additionally, the small anatomic scale of current SCS animal models is a barrier to more translational research. Methods: Using chronic constriction injury (CCI) of the common peroneal nerve (CPN) in sheep (ovine), we have created a chronic model of neuropathic pain that avoids motor deficits present in prior large animal models. This large animal model has allowed us to implant clinical grade SCS hardware, which enables both acute and chronic testing using von Frey filament thresholds and gait analysis. Furthermore, the larger anatomic scale of the sheep allows for simultaneous single-unit recordings from the dorsal horn and SCS with minimal electrical artifact. Results: Detectable tactile hypersensitivity occurred 21 days after nerve injury, with preliminary indications that chronic SCS may reverse it in the painful limb. Gait analysis revealed no hoof drop in the CCI model. Single neurons were identified and discriminated in the dorsal horn, and their activity was modulated via SCS. Unlike previous large animal models that employed a complete transection of the nerve, no motor deficit was observed in the sheep with CCI. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first reported large animal model of chronic neuropathic pain which facilitates the study of both acute and chronic SCS using complementary behavioral and electrophysiologic measures. As demonstrated by our successful establishment of these techniques, an ovine model of neuropathic pain is suitable for testing the mechanisms of SCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]