Paraplegic Dogs: Urinary Bladder Evacuation with Direct Electric Stimulation

Kantrowitz, Ádrian; Schamaun, M

doi:10.1126/science.139.3550.115

Cited by 21 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are consistent with data from the literature found after stimulation of electrodes implanted into the bladder wall by open surgery [Bradley et al, 1962[Bradley et al, , 1963Kantrowitz and Schamaun, 1963;Timm and Bradley, 19691. Simultaneous stimulations leading to contractions at the level of the pelvic floor, which could possibly be caused by current spread, are not anticipated as no elevated voiding pressures were observed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Some of these techniques are routinely applied in appropriate cases of urinary incontinence. Stimulation of the detrusor via electrodes implanted into the bladder wall has been described earlier [Bradley et al, 1962[Bradley et al, , 1963Kantrowitz and Schamaun, 1963;Timm and Bradley, 19691. Initiation of bladder contractions and micturition was reproducibly achieved in several experimental setups using normal -.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Implantation of electrodes into the detrusor muscle followed by electrostimulation has been performed in experimental studies [Bradley et al, 1962[Bradley et al, , 1963Kantrowitz and Schamaun, 1963;Timm and Bradley, 19691. However, this concept did not prove to be practical for permanent use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Laparoscopic implantation of temporary electrodes for bladder stimulation in dogs

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laparoscopic implantation of temporary electrodes for bladder stimulation in dogs

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Initially, FES systems targeted different anatomical sites, including the bladder wall [59], pelvic nerves [45] and sacral roots [13][14][15][16]. However, direct bladder stimulation or pelvic nerve excitation failed to yield effec-tive micturition.…”

Section: Implanted Bladder Neuroprosthesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implantable neuroprosthetic technology

Bhadra

Chae

2009

NRE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroprostheses electrically stimulate paralyzed muscles to provide functional enhancement for individuals with neurological disorders, especially among persons with spinal cord injuries. Fully implanted neuroprostheses are reliable, require minimal maintenance and are user-friendly. These systems provide a variety of functions, including reaching, hand grasp and release, standing and stepping, bladder and bowel function and respiratory assist. Based on a representative review of the literature, this article presents and evaluates the development, clinical implementation and clinical efficacy and effectiveness of the various implanted neuroprostheses. Directions for future development are also presented. Press and the authors. All rights reserved N. Bhadra and J. Chae / Implantable neuroprosthetic technology Table 1 Key publications in implanted neuroprostheses Topic Author/year Article summary Review Ragnarsson [88], 2008 An overview of the progress made in FES applications, current challenges and suggested future improvements. DiMarco [32], 2005 A review of Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) technology for restoration of respiratory function. Upper Limb Peckham [82], 2001 A multicenter cohort trial of an implanted hand neuroprosthesis for persons with tetraplegia with at least 3 years of follow-up. Hand function of 51 adults with C5 or C6 spinal cord injury (SCI) was compared before and after implantation, and with and without the neuroprosthesis. The neuroprosthesis was safe and well accepted, and increased independence. Lower Limb Kottink [70], 2007 A randomized controlled trial of an implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulator among 29 stroke chronic stroke survivors. The intervention group received the implantable stimulator for correction of drop foot. The control group used conventional walking devices (ankle-foot orthosis, orthopedic shoes, or no device). FES resulted in a 23% improvement in walking speed, whereas the improvement in the control group was 3%. The study showed a clinically relevant effect of the implantable stimulator on walking speed. Bladder Brindley [16], 1994 A review of the first 500 patients implanted with a sacral anterior root stimulators for bladder control. Of 479 survivors, 424 were using their stimulators when last followed up between 3 months and 16.1 years (mean 4 years) after implantation. Creasey [27], 2001A prospective study comparing bladder and bowel control before and at 3, 6, and 12 months after implantation of a neuroprosthesis for stimulating the sacral nerves with posterior sacral rhizotomy among 23 individuals with suprasacral SCI. At 1-year follow-up, 18 of 21 patients could urinate more than 200 mL with the neuroprosthesis; fifteen of 21 had post void volumes of less than 50 mL. The incidence of urinary tract infections, catheter use, reflex incontinence, anticholinergic drug use, and autonomic dysreflexia were substantially reduced at follow-up relative to pre-implantation. At 1-year follow-up, 15 of 17 patients reduced the time spent with bowel managem...

show abstract

“…Several groups developed implanted stimulators inductively coupled to external transmitters with variations in the design, placement and number of electrodes (Bradley et al, 1962;Hald et al, 1967;Stenberg et al, 1967;Susset and Boctor, 1967;Merrill and Conway, 1974;Magasi and Simon, 1986). Initial animal experiments demonstrated that spinalized dogs were able to void regularly using the implanted stimulators without requiring additional procedures (Bradley et al, 1962;Bradley et al, 1963;Kantrowitz and Schamaun, 1963). However, results in spinal cord injury patients implanted with these stimulators were much less successful (Bradley et al, 1963;Hald et al, 1967;Stenberg et al, 1967;Susset and Boctor, 1967;Merrill and Conway, 1974).…”

Section: Bladder Wall Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%