Quantitative electrophysiological assessments as predictive markers of lower limb motor recovery after spinal cord injury: a pilot study with an adaptive trial design

Abstract

Study design Observational, cohort study. Objectives (1) Determine the feasibility and relevance of assessing corticospinal, sensory, and spinal pathways early after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) in a rehabilitation setting. (2) Validate whether electrophysiological and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures taken early after SCI could identify preserved neural pathways, which could then guide therapy. Setting Intensive functional rehabilitation hospital (IFR). Methods Five individuals with traumatic SCI and eight controls were recruited. The lower extremity motor score (LEMS), electrical perceptual threshold (EPT) at the S2 dermatome, soleus (SOL) H-reflex, and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle were assessed during the stay in IFR and in the chronic stage (>6 months post-SCI). Control participants were only assessed once. Feasibility criteria included the absence of adverse events, adequate experimental session duration, and complete dataset gathering. The relationship between electrophysiological data collected in IFR and LEMS in the chronic phase was studied. The admission MRI was used to calculate the maximal spinal cord compression (MSCC). Results No adverse events occurred, but a complete dataset could not be collected for all subjects due to set-up configuration limitations and time constraints. EPT measured at IFR correlated with LEMS in the chronic phases (r = −0.67), whereas SOL H/M ratio, H latency, MEPs and MSCC did not. Conclusions Adjustments are necessary to implement electrophysiological assessments in an IFR setting. Combining MRI and electrophysiological measures may lead to better assessment of neuronal deficits early after SCI.

Utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the assessment of spinal cord injury: Current status and future directions

“…Changes in TMS measures should exceed these high SDC values to be considered as real change, which makes it challenging to use TMS measures as individual biomarkers. There is upcoming work addressing the feasibility and relevance of TMS-based assessment after SCI in the rehabilitation settings, and validating their use (along with imaging assessments) as predictive markers ( 98 ). The clinically meaningful difference of TMS-based metrics have yet to be established for individuals with SCI.…”