A New Technology for Recovery of Locomotion in Patients after a Stroke

Мошонкина, Т. Р.; Zharova, Elena; Ananev, S S; Shandybina, Natalia; Vershinina, E. A.; Lyakhovetskii, Vsevolod; Гришин, А. М.; Shlyakhto, Е. V.; Gerasimenko, Yu. P.

doi:10.1134/s1607672922340087

Cited by 7 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One study reported significant improvement pre-to postintervention in the group receiving SCS (Awosika et al, 2020). Four of 6 studies had significant pre-to postintervention improvement on the 6MWT (Awosika et al, 2020;Moshonkina et al, 2022;Picelli et al, 2018Picelli et al, , 2019. Two studies had improvements on the 10MWT (Awosika et al, 2020;Moshonkina et al, 2022).…”

Section: Lower Limb Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four of 6 studies had significant pre-to postintervention improvement on the 6MWT (Awosika et al, 2020;Moshonkina et al, 2022;Picelli et al, 2018Picelli et al, , 2019. Two studies had improvements on the 10MWT (Awosika et al, 2020;Moshonkina et al, 2022). Four studies examined muscle tone in the lower extremities, and 1 found clinically significant changes in muscle tone (Chua et al, 2023).…”

Section: Lower Limb Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…McHugh et al (2021) completed a systematic review analyzing epidural SCS in which 24 participants in 18 studies saw a net improvement in EMG activity, stepping ability, and muscle force. In addition to studies noting improvements among individuals with spinal cord injury, SCS is beginning to emerge in stroke rehabilitation research (Awosika et al, 2020;Bogacheva et al, 2023;Chua et al, 2023;Cioni, Meglio, Prezioso, et al, 1989;Cioni, Meglio, & Zamponi, 1989;Moon et al, 2021;Moshonkina et al, 2022;Nakamura & Tsubokawa, 1985;Paget-Blanc et al, 2019;Picelli et al, 2015Picelli et al, , 2018Picelli et al, , 2019Powell et al, 2023;Wang et al, 1998Wang et al, , 2000.…”

Section: Types Of Scsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine studies analyzed the effect of SCS on behavioral outcomes of the lower limb (Awosika et al, 2020;Bogacheva et al, 2023;Chua et al, 2023;Moshonkina et al, 2022;Picelli et al, 2015Picelli et al, , 2018Picelli et al, , 2019Wang et al, 1998Wang et al, , 2000. Four of the 9 studies reported significant improvement in at least one behavioral outcome from pre-to postintervention (Awosika et al, 2020;Moshonkina et al, 2022;Picelli et al, 2018Picelli et al, , 2019. Two studies reported significant improvements in the groups receiving SCS compared with those receiving sham SCS (Picelli et al, 2015(Picelli et al, , 2018.…”

Section: Lower Limb Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four studies examined muscle tone in the lower extremities, and 1 found clinically significant changes in muscle tone (Chua et al, 2023). Finally, 3 of 7 studies found a significant improvement in various gait parameters (Moshonkina et al, 2022;Picelli et al, 2015Picelli et al, , 2018. (See Table A.4 for details.…”

Section: Lower Limb Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Poststroke Hemiparesis: A Scoping Review

Allen,

Karri,

Yang

et al. 2024

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Importance: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a neuromodulation technique that can improve paresis in individuals with spinal cord injury. SCS is emerging as a technique that can address upper and lower limb hemiparesis. Little is understood about its effectiveness with the poststroke population. Objective: To summarize the evidence for SCS after stroke and any changes in upper extremity and lower extremity motor function. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and CINAHL. The reviewers used hand searches and reference searches of retrieved articles. There were no limitations regarding publication year. Study Selection and Data Collection: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The inclusion and exclusion criteria included a broad range of study characteristics. Studies were excluded if the intervention did not meet the definition of SCS intervention, used only animals or healthy participants, did not address upper or lower limb motor function, or examined neurological conditions other than stroke. Findings: Fourteen articles met the criteria for this review. Seven studies found a significant improvement in motor function in groups receiving SCS. Conclusions and Relevance: Results indicate that SCS may provide an alternative means to improve motor function in the poststroke population. Plain-Language Summary: The results of this study show that spinal cord stimulation may provide an alternative way to improve motor function after stroke. Previous neuromodulation methods have targeted the impaired supraspinal circuitry after stroke. Although downregulated, spinal cord circuitry is largely intact and offers new possibilities for motor recovery.

show abstract