Next Article in Journal
Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Mind-Body Training as a Mental Health Therapy in Adults with Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A Systematic Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Optimization of Transspinal Stimulation Applications for Motor Recovery after Spinal Cord Injury: Scoping Review

1
Spinal Cord Injury and Disorders, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, VA 23249, USA
2
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA
3
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA
4
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Service, Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC 27705, USA
5
Geriatrics Division, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(3), 854; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030854
Submission received: 17 November 2022 / Revised: 13 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 20 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Clinical Neurology)

Abstract

:
Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a debilitating condition that can significantly affect an individual’s life, causing paralysis, autonomic dysreflexia, and chronic pain. Transspinal stimulation (TSS) is a non-invasive form of neuromodulation that activates the underlying neural circuitries of the spinal cord. Application of TSS can be performed through multiple stimulation protocols, which may vary in the electrodes’ size or position as well as stimulation parameters, and which may influence the response of motor functions to the stimulation. Due to the novelty of TSS, it is beneficial to summarize the available evidence to identify the range of parameters that may provide the best outcomes for motor response. The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies examining the effects of TSS on limb motor function. A literature search yielded 34 studies for analysis, in which electrode placement and stimulation parameters varied considerably. The stimulation protocols from each study and their impact on limb motor function were summarized. Electrode placement was variable based on the targeted limb. Studies for the upper limbs targeted the cervical enlargement with anatomical placement of the cathode over the cervical vertebral region. In lower-limb studies, the cathode(s) were placed over the thoracic and lumbar vertebral regions, to target the lumbar enlargement. The effects of carrier frequency were inconclusive across the studies. Multisite cathodal placements yielded favorable motor response results compared to single-site placement. This review briefly summarized the current mechanistic evidence of the effect of TSS on motor response after SCI. Our findings indicate that optimization of stimulation parameters will require future randomized controlled studies to independently assess the effects of different stimulation parameters under controlled circumstances.

1. Introduction

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a highly debilitating condition, with nearly 20,000 new cases per year [1]. SCI can have a wide range of motor effects, ranging from nearly full recovery to permanent, severe disability. SCI can be traumatic or non-traumatic, resulting in changes in spinal nerves’ connectivity and signal transmission. Paralysis or paresis of the lower extremities and trunk is classified as paraplegia/paresis, whereas paralysis or paresis of the upper extremities, trunk, and lower extremities combined is called tetraplegia [2]. A clinical diagnosis of “complete” SCI indicates no preserved motor or sensory function below the lesion, whereas an “incomplete” SCI may have varying degrees of preserved sensory and motor function [3]. In the United States, 47.2% of all SCIs result in incomplete tetraplegia, 19.6% in incomplete paraplegia, 20.2% in complete paraplegia, and 12.3% in complete tetraplegia, while 0.7% result in complete recovery of sensory and motor function [1]. The debilitating effects of SCI have led to researchers exploring different treatments over the years. A key area of interest has been the use of various techniques to target neuroplasticity via neuromodulation approaches. The International Neuromodulation Society describes neuromodulation as “a field of science, medicine, and bioengineering that encompasses implantable and non-implantable technologies, electrical or chemical, for the purpose of improving the quality of life and functioning of humans.” [4] Neuromodulation has many applications, including managing chronic pain, spasticity, and loss of physical function. One method for neuromodulation is the use of electrical stimuli [4]. Electrical stimuli can be delivered by several methods, including transcutaneous electrical neural stimulation, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, functional electrical stimulation, and transspinal stimulation (TSS) [5]. Some of the most exciting developments in neuromodulation involve the use TSS for the treatment of persons with SCI.
TSS is a non-invasive form of neuromodulation. TSS as a modality can be split into two subtypes: direct-current TSS and pulsed TSS [6]. This review will focus on pulsed TSS, a distinction which should be noted, despite the use of the abbreviation TSS throughout the manuscript. TSS involves the placement of stimulation electrodes over the skin, with the cathodes between interspinous processes and the anodes on the opposing bony landmarks such as clavicles, tips of the shoulders, lower abdominal region, or iliac crests to induce stimulation of spinal cord neural circuitries [7,8].
A growing body of evidence supports the idea that TSS promotes functional recovery in humans with SCI [7,8,9,10]. Motor and sensory improvements were observed when TSS was applied with [8,11] or without [9] other therapies such as buspirone [8], exoskeleton training [11], or task-specific activities focused on hand strength training to increase grip strength and function of the hand [12]. TSS applied at the cervical level can improve upper-extremity function in people with tetraplegia [7]. After a single session of TSS, Benavides et al. found that TSS had an excitatory effect at the spinal level, which was measured by cervico-medullary evoked potentials, and an inhibitory effect at the cortical level as measured by intracortical inhibition [7]. These changes were associated with improved upper-extremity function in individuals with tetraplegia. An assessment of spinal cord evoked potentials demonstrated that these results were due to increased spinal network excitability with tonic TSS. Gad et al. proposed using cervical TSS twice weekly for four weeks with participants in an upright sitting position as a non-invasive approach to modulate the cervical network segments [12]. The training session lasted for 1–2 h and involved stimulation parameters that enabled motor control rather than inducing motor function. Maximum voluntary hand grip forces increased by 325% in the presence of stimulation and 225% when grip strength was evaluated without simultaneous stimulation in participants with chronic tetraplegia 1–21 years post-injury [12]. Maximum evoked responses quantified by EMG amplitude in both the flexor digitorum and extensor digitorum also increased significantly across the studied cohort. Subjects demonstrated improved upper-extremity function starting from the first training session, as demonstrated by their abilities to generate a greater maximum voluntary hand grip force [12].
The protocols included in this review varied based on parameters and outcome measures, such as the utilization of the posterior root muscle (PRM) reflex [13] to establish a cut-off for stimulation amplitude. The PRM is a short-latency spinal reflex resulting from TSS; it occurs due to the activation of proprioceptive fibers in the posterior nerve roots, which activate motor neurons in the anterior aspect of the spinal cord. The definition of the motor threshold varies considerably among these studies. For example, Shapkova et al. defined the motor threshold as the amplitude required to elicit motor evoked potential (MEP) on an EMG in at least four lower-extremity muscles (bilateral rectus femoris, biceps femoris, gastrocnemius lateralis, and tibialis anterior) [14]. Both Wu et al. and Kumru et al. defined the motor threshold as the amplitude required to elicit an MEP of 50 microvolts in the adductor pollicis brevis in 5/10 repetitions [15,16]. In contrast, Al’Joboori et al. defined the motor threshold as the amplitude that elicited visible muscle contractions. Other studies did not specify their protocol for determining the exact motor threshold [17].
The current review aims to summarize the stimulation protocols and electrode parameters of TSS studies that were directed toward enhancing upper- and lower-extremity motor function. We have also included studies on healthy able-bodied controls to facilitate understanding of how TSS was managed differently in persons with SCI. We are hopeful that the review will offer a clear description of the included studies, highlighting the protocols utilized and providing a better understanding of the parameters of TSS. It will also highlight the mechanisms which underlie TSS-enabled motor function [18,19,20,21].

2. Methodology

The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched from December 2021 to July 2022 with the query (“transcutaneous” OR “non-invasive” OR “Transspinal” OR “trans-spinal” OR “Transpinal”) AND “stimulation” AND “spinal cord” AND “spinal cord injury” AND “upper limb” AND “lower limb.” All titles were read; those that had “Transspinal,” “paralysis,” “stepping,” “lower limb,” “upper limb,” “hand function,” and “SCI” were included for abstract reading. Studies were included for full reading if they had motor or neurophysiologic outcomes based on EMG. Review articles [22] were excluded from full reading; however, their references were examined for relevant studies. This search identified 12 studies on upper-extremity function and 22 on lower-extremity function. All included studies were read thoroughly, and their protocols were summarized. In the following sections, we will outline the information on electrode placement, stimulation amplitude, waveform, pulse width, frequency, and carrier frequency. This review will also look at study outcomes and the simulation parameters that were used to achieve them.

2.1. Mechanism of Action

Several studies have explored the mechanisms that underlie TSS-enabled motor function, which can be summarized as follows. The effects of TSS on motor control can be attributed to either supraspinal or spinal mechanisms. In SCI, the corticospinal tract is an important target for the recovery of motor functions. Inducing voluntary motor outcomes depends on the effectiveness of the connections between the corticospinal axons and motor neurons in the spine. Current neurophysiologic data indicates that TSS facilitates the formation of new synaptic connections between spinal interneurons and motor neurons via the stimulation of dorsal afferents, thus allowing restoration of supraspinal control of motor function.
In the spinal region TSS activates the neural circuitry by recruiting afferent fibers located in the posterior root and elevating spinal circuit excitability [18,19]. Gerasimenko et al. identified that the excitability of spinal interneuronal networks could be modulated without directly resulting in action potential production [20]. TSS is known to recruit afferent group Ia and group II fibers in the posterior root while also engaging the motor neurons in the anterior horn; these findings can be viewed by carefully studying evoked motor potentials [20,21]. Furthermore, as the stimulation amplitude rises, there is an increase in the types of afferent fibers (Ib, group II muscle spindle, and cutaneous afferents) and interneurons that are recruited, which results in motor neurons and interneurons achieving a base state closer to the firing threshold and become more responsive to the descending signals in the injured spinal cord [20].
The supraspinal effect of TSS may result from activation of the axons of the extrapyramidal tract in the subcortical white matter. TSS delivered at submotor thresholds allows electrical stimuli to be delivered to supraspinal and spinal centers to induce mechanical events. The arrival of the presynaptic signal to the corticospinal tract prior to the activation of the motor neurons causes a discharge in the corticospinal transmission. This may result in neural plasticity of the corticospinal and motor neuron synapses that can facilitate motor function in SCI, and modulation of the remaining synapses can target and enhance voluntary motor control in persons with SCI [23].
Stimulation of the dorsal root is not the only route through which TSS may modulate the underlying neural circuitries [24]. In fact, cutaneous activation occurs over a range of stimulation amplitudes that are lower than the motor threshold required to induce activation of the Ia fibers. Electrical stimulation over the spinal cord has been shown to cause inhibition via interneurons in the laminae I–III, making it important to consider that the inhibitory neurons play a role in the beneficial effects of TSS by enhancing the dorsal GABAergic systems [24]. Apart from the depolarization of the sensory afferents in the dorsal root and the dorsal horn to transsynaptically recruit motor pools, the polysynaptic connections of the mechanoreceptors in the skin are believed to act on the sensory and motor pools in the spinal cord; this occurs through the connections that these interneurons establish between the spinal levels higher and lower than the point of injury [24].

2.2. Electrode Placements

Proper anatomical placement of electrodes is vital to target the correct spinal regions and provide the ideal location for interfacing with the spinal network, as noted in Table 1a,b. There are two types of electrodes: the cathode, or negative electrode, and the anode, or positive electrode. In the studies reviewed, the cathodes were either placed at a single anatomical location (referred to as single-site stimulation) or at more than one anatomical location (referred to as multisite stimulation). Several studies were based on the idea that targeting the cervical and lumbar enlargements would facilitate the stimulation of a large number of neural circuits associated with the activation of muscles in the respective limbs.
The lower-limb studies with able-bodied participants that adopted a single-site arrangement used cathode placement between spinous processes T11/T12 [29,41], L1/L2 [41], or bilaterally on each side of the spinous processes at L1/L2 [40]. Studies using a multisite placement opted for midline spinous processes of T10 and L1 [34], midline at C5, T11, and/or L1 spinous processes [35], 8 cm caudal and 4 cm rostral around the interspinous space T11–12 [30], and between the spinous processes of T10–T11, T11–T12, and T12–L1 midline [36]. The anode in the studies with able-bodied participants was placed bilaterally over the iliac crest, except for Manson et al., who placed it over the abdomen centrally [40] and placed the cathodes bilaterally in between L1/L2.
Single-site studies for lower limbs which enrolled participants with SCI placed the electrodes at the midline between T10/T11, T10/L1 [32,38], the midline over T12, the midline between the T11/T12 [10,13,31] spinous processes, or para-spinally at T11/T12 [13]. Another study placed the cathode between T12–L1 [17]. In contrast, multisite studies placed cathodes at the midline between spinous processes T11–T12 or over Co1 [12], between spinous processes T11–T12 [39] or L1–L2 [44], from T10/T11 to L4/L5 [33], and midline between spinous processes T11–T12 or over the coccyx [37]. A study by Samejima et al. applied cathodes at four different anatomical sites over the midline at C3/C4, C6/C7, T11, and L1 [43]. In the studies where participants had SCI, the anodes were placed over the lower abdomen or bilaterally over the iliac crest.
In upper-limb studies with able-bodied participants, single-site cathode placement was over C6, C7, or T1 [27,28], while one study utilized an electrode that ranged from C7–T1 [18]. A multisite study applied a cathode each at midline over C3–C4, C6–C7, and over the T1 and L1 spinous processes [21]. The anodes were applied over the iliac crests, midline over the anterior neck, and bilaterally over the clavicles.
Single-site upper-extremity studies with participants who had SCI opted for cathode placements over the C5 spinous process [8], midline between the C5–C6 spinous process [7], and over the midline 4 cm caudal to the C7 spinous process [15] in a longitudinal arrangement. The studies that utilized multisite placement of the cathode among persons with SCI positioned one at the midline over the C3–C4 spinous processes and another midline at the C6–C7 spinous processes [9,12]. Another study positioned the cathode at the midline above and below the injury level [26], while one study used a cathode that covered C5–T2 [25]. The anodes were placed over both clavicles or iliac crests, and one study applied them 2 cm over the sternal notch.

Electrode Configuration

Another factor associated with the electrodes is their shape. Several studies applied rectangular [10,11,19,32,38] and/or circular [11,19,31] electrodes for the cathode, while rectangular-shaped electrodes were chosen as anodes. Though no study specifically identified the reasoning behind their selection, it was observed that in multisite cathodal placements, a circular electrode was placed at a higher vertebral level as compared to pair of rectangular electrodes for lower vertebral locations [11,31]. Manson et al. employed an electrode arrangement in the form of a grid [40].
Sayenko et al., conducting a study with able-bodied participants, opted to place the electrodes between the spinous processes of T10/T11, T11/T12, and T12/L1 [19]. They observed that the position of the cathodes changed the intensity of the response in muscles, such that stimulation at T10/T11 caused the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris to respond with a higher magnitude as compared to the medial hamstring and soleus muscles. On the contrary, when stimulation was delivered at T12/L1, the medial hamstring and the soleus showed a greater amplitude response.
Sasaki et al. sought to determine what cathode placement would best facilitate the PRM reflex, which is a short-latency spinal reflex that can be evoked with TSS [27]. De Freitas et al. assessed the effects of different cathode–anode arrangements, observing that distal hand musculature was most responsive to an orientation with the cathode over T1 and the anode over the anterior neck [28]. Gad et al. compared the effects on maximum grip strength facilitated by multisite (C3/C4 and C6/C7) vs. single-site (C3/C4 or C6/C7) stimulation in participants with SCI [12]. The study’s outcomes reported that distal muscles displayed more forceful voluntary contractions in response to multisite stimulation. Similarly, Gerasimenko et al. compared the effects of multisite (C5/C6, T11/T12, and L1/L2) vs. single-site (C5/C6 or T11/T12 or L1/L2) stimulation in able-bodied individuals while in a lying position [35]. It was observed that stimulation at T11 resulted in motor evoked potential (MEP) of lesser magnitude than stimulation at the other three sites simultaneously in both the medial gastrocnemius and bicep femoris muscles. Wu et al. evaluated the effects of several electrode arrangements in both able-bodied participants and participants with SCI [15]. They observed that compared to cathode-anterior arrangements at C4/C5 with biphasic waveforms, cathode-posterior arrangements at T2/T4 with biphasic waveform orientations elicited large muscle responses in the abductor pollicis brevis and abductor digiti minimi at lower intensities. Furthermore, De Freitas et al. conducted two experiments in supine position: one to optimize cathode placement and one to optimize anode placement [28]. In phase one, upper-extremity MEP was measured. The cathode was moved from the spinous processes of C6 to C7 and from C7 to T1 with the anode fixed on the anterior neck. The optimal cathode location was chosen and held constant for each participant. In contrast, the anode location varied among one anode on the anterior neck or two anodes on bilateral clavicles, two anodes on the iliac crests, and one anode 4 cm below the cathode on the posterior neck. Out of the four positional arrangements, placing the cathode at T1 yielded the most MEP in the hand musculature.
Future studies should aim to further explore the role of the anatomical position of the cathode by developing protocols that compare outcomes between different multisite vs. single-site stimulation studies. Although not widely investigated in the current literature, the body’s positioning could affect the area targeted by the stimulation and should be looked into in further detail in the future.

2.3. Waveform

Studies included in this review reported using two different waveforms, biphasic or monophasic. Among the lower-limb studies with able-bodied participants, four reported using a biphasic waveform [29,30,35,40], whereas another four reported using a monophasic waveform [34,36,37,41]. Among SCI studies, five studies reported the use of a biphasic waveform [10,31,42,43,44], five reported the use of a monophasic waveform [13,14,17,19,33], and another three [11,32,38] studies did not report what type of waveform was delivered.
Similarly to the lower-limb studies mentioned above, those focused on the upper limbs also applied either a biphasic or monophasic waveform. In studies with able-bodied participants, two applied a biphasic waveform [16,21], three applied a monophasic waveform [18,27,28], and one study examined both mono- and biphasic waveforms [15]. Among seven studies that included SCI to enhance upper-extremity function, two studies used exclusively biphasic stimulation [7,9], one used exclusively monophasic stimulation [25], three used a combination of monophasic and biphasic stimulation [12,15,26], and one did not report the type of waveform used [8].
The comparison between the two different types of waveforms has not been studied in great depth, and most study protocols do not provide a rationale for their selection. The selection of a biphasic waveform may be attributed to the fact that it does not have an electrochemical polarization effect, hypothetically improving tolerance and application at a higher stimulus amplitude [15] and possibly protecting against tissue damage, especially below the level of the injury. In contrast, a monophasic waveform causes depolarization of the neural membrane by generating negative charges from the cathode [45]. One study that examined the effect of monophasic vs. biphasic waveforms [26] reported that biphasic waveforms facilitated fine motor control [26]. In contrast, monophasic waveforms facilitated the performance of strength-related activities [26]. Additional studies are needed to examine the effects of different waveforms on motor response. The aforementioned evidence may support the use of a biphasic waveform for application of TSS.

2.4. Stimulus Amplitude

Stimulus amplitude is a parameter that varied with each study, as summarized in Table 2. Additionally, motor responses may vary based on the amplitude of the stimulation. Some studies quantified stimulus amplitude in terms of current (mA), while three studies by Hofstoetter et al. reported amplitude in terms of voltage (v) [10,31,42]. It is useful to review studies of stimulation parameters from two perspectives: (a) classified by upper- vs. lower-limb stimulation, subdivided by studies in able-bodied persons vs. persons with SCI; and (b) classified according to stimulation amplitude.
Stimulation amplitude adjusted to submotor, motor, or supramotor thresholds affected the examined outcomes. A submotor threshold amplitude was used in several of the reviewed studies [10,17,31]. Hofstoetter et al., noted that a submotor threshold amplitude resulted in a greater gain in the range of motion of ankle dorsiflexion and a decrease in the clonus activity of the tibialis anterior and calf muscles compared to no stimulation [31]. Another study reported that at a submotor threshold, while in standing position, the stride length was increased from 1.13 m to 1.32 m and facilitated a more fluid multi-joint movement cycle [10]. Inanici et al. reported that using a submotor threshold stimulus significantly increased participants’ pinch force and their graded redefined assessment of strength sensibility and prehension [26]. The use of a 100% motor threshold amplitude was applied by Gad et al., and they observed an increase in grip strength. Another study noted increased step-like movement, a decrease in the time required to perform a motor function, and increased MEP as compared to no stimulation [12]. Studies that used a supramotor threshold [14,15,16] indicated increases in the walk time while using an exoskeleton [14], decreased response latency [15], and augmented hand muscle strength [16] in a sitting position. Few studies compared the effects of varying the stimulation amplitudes. Only three studies examined amplitudes that ranged from the submotor threshold to the supramotor threshold. Kumru et al. studied the effects of different stimulation intensities on hand motor function and strength in the upper limbs of able-bodied participants [16]. The study utilized subthreshold levels of 80% and 90% of the resting spinal motor threshold along with a supramotor threshold value of 110%. It reported that using 90% of the amplitude of the spinal motor threshold induced better results than other stimulation intensities [16]. Wu et al. measured the motor threshold and then delivered stimulation that ranged from 80% to 200% of this level to participants in a seated position. The study reported that the higher stimulation amplitudes resulted in shorter latency periods by up to 2.5 ms in the abductor policis brevis muscle [15].
In lower-limb studies with able-bodied participants, the stimulus amplitude was either based on evoking a stepping-like motor response [29,35,41] or the highest tolerable amplitude [30,34,35,36,40]. However, some studies had a maximum safety threshold they would not exceed [29,30,35]. In lower-limb studies with SCI participants, researchers chose an amplitude that resulted in the PRM reflex [13], producing the desired outcome of stepping [11] while in a supine position, eliciting MEP [33], or producing paresthesia [10,17,31]. These studies aimed to stimulate at a submotor threshold level rather than inducing motor function. Several studies did not list the reason behind the selected amplitudes [10,19,32,38].
In upper-limb studies with able-bodied participants, the protocol was different in each study. Three studies tested a range of intensities from the subthreshold to the suprathreshold [15,16,28], another adopted the maximum tolerated amplitude [21], and one study chose the amplitude at which the participant reported paresthesia [27]. In persons with SCI, amplitudes that maximized the motor response [7,8,12] or protocols that tested stimulation amplitudes ranging from the submotor threshold to the supramotor threshold of the resting motor potential [15,25,26].
McHugh et al. used stimulation amplitudes either at the highest tolerated level or at the submotor threshold to activate the lower-limb muscles in participants with SCI. The study used the 10 m walk test (10MWT), 6 min walk test (6MWT), timed up-and-go test, and walking index for spinal cord injury II as primary outcome measures. The results showed that all participants gained significant gait speed, increased endurance, and improvements in functional mobility [39].
In sum, the selection of stimulation amplitude varied considerably across studies, rendering it difficult to determine which method results in the greatest functional benefit and for whom. This level of variability also makes replication difficult, and it is not as informative scientifically (i.e., which method for stimulus selection is optimal). On the other hand, the generalization of a protocol which specifies a base amplitude would not be ideal, as everyone has a different tolerance level. In this case, the method of ascertaining tolerance needs to be defined and implemented consistently. This is an important question to be addressed by the field.

2.5. Pulse Width

Pulse width is another factor necessary for the deliverance of a stimulus. Among the lower-limb studies with able-bodied participants, five studies reported the use of a 1 ms pulse width [34,35,36,40,41], two studies reported a pulse width of 0.5 ms [29,37], and one study applied a 2 ms pulse width [30]. Among SCI studies, eight studies reported the use of a 1 ms pulse width [13,17,19,33,39,42,43,44], and two reported a 2 ms pulse [10,31] width; three studies did not report the used pulse width [11,32,38]
Three reported using a 2 ms pulse width in studies that targeted the upper limbs in able-bodied participants [18,27,28], and two used a 1 ms pulse width [16,21]. Similarly, in SCI studies, one study reported the use of 0.2 ms pulse width [7], while five studies used a 1 ms pulse width [9,12,15,25,26], one used a 2 ms pulse width [15], and another did not specify the used pulse width [8].
Wu et al. observed that in able-bodied participants a 1 ms pulse caused lower discomfort levels as compared to a 2 ms pulse width with mono- and biphasic waveforms, although the strength of the stimuli was not mentioned [15].
The use of different pulse widths may alter the recruitment of neurons; it has been observed that a shorter pulse width requires a higher amplitude to cause neuron activation, in contrast a longer pulse width, which can cause activation of neurons at lower amplitudes [46]. Furthermore, it is important to identify the pulse width that best facilitates a decrease in pain and improves motor function. This may explain why several of the reviewed studies have recommended the use of a 1 ms pulse width.

2.6. Frequency

One stimulus-related parameter in the application of TSS is the frequency, as summarized in Table 3. Among the lower-limb studies with able-bodied participants, four studies used a 30 Hz [29,34,37,41] frequency, and one study reported the use of a 5 Hz frequency [35], while another two did not report the frequency of the stimuli [30,36]. Gorodnichev et al. applied several different frequencies (1, 5, 10, 20,30, and 40 Hz) [29] which resulted in inducing involuntary step-like movement in participants. Other studies have applied different stimulation frequencies, such as 30 Hz at T11 accompanied with 5 Hz at the coccyx [37], and another study used 30 Hz at T11–T12 accompanied with 0.3 Hz at L1 [41]. In SCI studies, stimulation was applied at 30 Hz [10,11,13,17,19,33,38,43] in eight studies, while three reported using 50 Hz [31,38,39], and one reported using 20 Hz [32]. To observe the role of frequency, Kaur et al. used multiple frequencies (30, 50, 70, and 90 Hz) [38] delivered at a single stimulation site and reported that the application of higher frequencies (70 Hz and 90 Hz) caused better activation of the quadriceps as compared to lower frequencies (30 Hz and 50 Hz). Shapkova et al. applied frequencies of 1 Hz, 3Hz, and 67 Hz [14] and reported that the application of 67 Hz resulted in decreased spasticity and increased exoskeleton steps. Sayenko et al. applied 5 Hz, 15 Hz, 25 Hz, and 30 Hz [19], and they observed that 15 Hz provided the most robust effects on standing in all participants, while 25 Hz caused the lowest muscle amplitudes while facilitating standing. In comparison, one multisite study by Gad et al. that applied frequencies of 30 Hz at T11 and 5 Hz at Co1 [11] reported a decrease in the mean step cycle from 2.13 s to 2.03 s.
In the upper-limb studies with able-bodied participants, the stimulus was set at a frequency of either 30 Hz [16,21,27], 0.2 Hz [15], or two pulses with a 50 ms interval in between [28,40]. In comparison, those studies with SCI participants used a frequency of 30 Hz [7,8,9,12,26], except for Manson et al., in which burst stimuli were delivered at a frequency of 0.2 Hz or continuously at 30 Hz [40] with similar motor threshold levels.
In addition to the role of stimulus frequency on the motor outcome, some studies examined the effects of the frequency on the participants’ spasticity. Hofstoetter et al., showed that a frequency of 50 Hz resulted in decreasing spasticity, exaggerated reflexes, and improvement in passive movements [31]. Shapkova et al. also reported a beneficial outcome on spasticity with their TSS protocol; they utilized three different frequencies (1 Hz, 3 Hz, and 67 Hz), observing that a higher frequency facilitated lowering spasticity and enabled exoskeleton-assisted walking [14]. Al’joboori et al. also applied a high stimulus frequency of 30 Hz to counter the effects of spasticity. The study reported improvements in lower-limb voluntary motor control under the protocol utilized [17].

2.7. Carrier Frequency

Carrier frequency as a stimulation parameter was not utilized by all the studies that were reviewed, as summarized in Table 3. Of the lower-limb studies with able-bodied participants, five studies reported using a carrier frequency, with two applying a frequency of 5 kHz [40,41] and three applying a frequency of 10 kHz [29,35,37]. Among studies with SCI participants, five reported using a frequency of 2.5 kHz [32,38] or 10 kHz [19,43,44]. In the studies of the upper limbs in able-bodied participants, three reported using a carrier frequency of 10 kHz [16,21,27]. However, among studies where participants had SCI, three studies applied 10 kHz [9,12,26], and one study used 5 KHz [7].
The role that carrier frequency plays is not fully understood. Gerasimenko et al., Inanici et al., and Gorodnichev et al. reported that using a carrier frequency may lead to improved muscle strength and mitigate discomfort [9,29,35]. Manson et al. provides insight into the claim that carrier frequency reduces the patient’s discomfort [40]. This study found that participants tolerated a significantly higher stimulation amplitude when a carrier frequency was applied, with subjects tolerating an amplitude more than twice as high when a carrier frequency was applied vs. when there was no carrier frequency (582 mA vs. 260 mA) [40]. However, the motor threshold was also increased by roughly the same factor (195 mA vs. 70 mA) with the application of a carrier frequency. There was no difference between groups when the maximum tolerable amplitude was normalized to a level required to produce a motor response [40]. A similar outcome was observed with the 30 Hz stimulation protocol: the maximum tolerable amplitude was increased in both groups [40]. The authors suggested that motor threshold may be higher when a carrier frequency is applied because the waveform is suboptimal for spinally evoked muscle response [40]. While the application of a carrier frequency may decrease participants’ discomfort at a given amplitude, it may be offset by an increase in the motor threshold, requiring an increased stimulation amplitude to attain the same therapeutic results. Another observation is that to obtain a desired motor outcome, the use of a carrier frequency was not better than when no carrier frequency was applied [40].
Benavides et al. also provided a great deal of information regarding the utility of carrier frequencies in stimulation protocols [7]. This study tested the effects of TSS with and without a 5 kHz carrier frequency on MEP and short-interval cortical inhibition (SICI) in the biceps brachii. When TSS was applied with a carrier frequency, SICI increased in the carrier-frequency group compared to the non-carrier-frequency group [7]. The use of a carrier frequency may contribute to cortical inhibitory effects, possibly reducing the incidence of spasticity after SCI. Hand and arm function measured by the GRASP test also improved to a greater degree when carrier frequency was used. However, this study only evaluated motor outcomes at a maximum of 75 min following stimulation. It is still unclear how a carrier frequency may affect long-term motor outcomes or enhance neuroplasticity in persons with SCI.
Further exploration is warranted to characterize the role of the carrier frequency properly. To further clarify the role of carrier frequencies in motor outcomes, future studies should emulate Benavides’ and Manson’s designs by including a control group that does not use a carrier frequency.

3. Summary/Conclusions

In summary, TSS facilitates improved upper- and lower-extremity function in individuals with SCI. The anatomical positioning of the cathodes either for the lower- or upper-limb programs varied based on the protocol utilized in these studies. Furthermore, multisite stimulation provided better motor outcomes than single-site stimulation. Stimulus amplitude was also highly variable; however, overall, the data supported the use of an amplitude at 90% of the motor threshold to maximize therapeutic benefit. The most selected stimulation frequencies suggested that tonic stimulation that ranged between 30 Hz and 50 Hz is considered the most optimal for either upper- or lower-extremity programs. The use of a carrier frequency was not consistent across all studies. Two studies had conflicting results. One suggested no benefit, and the other study suggested that a carrier frequency may facilitate the recovery of upper-extremity dexterity and enhance cortical inhibitory effects. Therefore, the effects of a carrier frequency on maximizing TSS outcomes remain inconclusive. Identifying the optimal parameters for TSS, based on the available data, is difficult. Future studies are warranted to systematically investigate the effects of manipulating different stimulation parameters to enhance the utilization of TSS in enhancing motor recovery after SCI.

Funding

ASG is currently supported by the DoD-CDMRP clinical trial program award number # W81XWH-20-1-0845 (SC190107 CDMRP W91ZSQ), the Department of Veterans Affairs-SPiRE Program (B3456-P), and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) for Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems (HHS-2021-ACL-NIDILRR-SIMS-004).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Spinal Cord Injury Facts and Figures at a Glance 2020 SCI Data Sheet. 2020. Available online: www.msktc.org/sci/model-system-centers (accessed on 13 April 2022).
  2. Figueiredo, N.; Figueiredo, I.E.; Resnick, D. Tetraplegia or paraplegia with brachial diparesis? What is the most appropriate designation for the motor deficit in patients with lower cervical spinal cord injury? Neurol. Sci. 2013, 34, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Roberts, T.T.; Leonard, G.R.; Cepela, D.J. Classifications in Brief: American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2017, 475, 1499–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. International Neuromodulation Society. Available online: https://www.neuromodulation.com/learn-more (accessed on 12 April 2022).
  5. Karamian, B.A.; Siegel, N.; Nourie, B.; Serruya, M.D.; Heary, R.F.; Harrop, J.S.; Vaccaro, A.R. The role of electrical stimulation for rehabilitation and regeneration after spinal cord injury. J. Orthop. Traumatol. 2022, 23, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rahman, M.d.A.; Tharu, N.S.; Gustin, S.M.; Zheng, Y.P.; Alam, M. Trans-Spinal Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Functional Rehabilitation after Spinal Cord Injury: Review. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Benavides, F.D.; Jo, H.J.; Lundell, H.; Edgerton, V.R.; Gerasimenko, Y.; Perez, M.A. Cortical and subcortical effects of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in humans with tetraplegia. J. Neurosci. 2020, 40, 2633–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Freyvert, Y.; Yong, N.A.; Morikawa, E.; Zdunowski, S.; Sarino, M.E.; Gerasimenko, Y.; Edgerton, V.R.; Lu, D.C. Engaging cervical spinal circuitry with non-invasive spinal stimulation and buspirone to restore hand function in chronic motor complete patients. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Inanici, F.; Samejima, S.; Gad, P.; Edgerton, V.R.; Hofstetter, C.P.; Moritz, C.T. Transcutaneous electrical spinal stimulation promotes long-term recovery of upper extremity function in chronic tetraplegia. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2018, 26, 1272–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hofstoetter, U.S.; Hofer, C.; Kern, H.; Danner, S.M.; Mayr, W.; Dimitrijevic, M.R.; Minassian, K. Effects of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation on voluntary locomotor activity in an incomplete spinal cord injured individual. Biomed. Tech. 2013, 58 (Suppl. S1A). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gad, P.; Gerasimenko, Y.; Zdunowski, S.; Turner, A.; Sayenko, D.; Lu, D.C.; Edgerton, V.R. Weight bearing over-ground stepping in an exoskeleton with non-invasive spinal cord neuromodulation after motor complete paraplegia. Front. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gad, P.; Lee, S.; Terrafranca, N.; Zhong, H.; Turner, A.; Gerasimenko, Y.; Edgerton, V.R. Non-invasive activation of cervical spinal networks after severe paralysis. J. Neurotrauma 2018, 35, 2145–2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Minassian, K.; Hofstoetter, U.S.; Danner, S.M.; Mayr, W.; Bruce, J.A.; McKay, W.B.; Tansey, K.E. Spinal Rhythm Generation by Step-Induced Feedback and Transcutaneous Posterior Root Stimulation in Complete Spinal Cord-Injured Individuals. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair. 2016, 30, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shapkova, E.Y.; Pismennaya, E.V.; Emelyannikov, D.V.; Ivanenko, Y. Exoskeleton Walk Training in Paralyzed Individuals Benefits from Transcutaneous Lumbar Cord Tonic Electrical Stimulation. Front. Neurosci. 2020, 14, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wu, Y.-K.; Levine, J.M.; Wecht, J.R.; Maher, M.T.; Limonta, J.M.; Saeed, S.; Santiago, T.M.; Bailey, E.; Kastuar, S.; Guber, K.S.; et al. Posteroanterior cervical transcutaneous spinal stimulation targets ventral and dorsal nerve roots. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2020, 131, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kumru, H.; Rodríguez-Cañón, M.; Edgerton, V.; García, L.; Soriano, I.; Opisso, E.; Gerasimenko, Y.; Navarro, X.; García-Alías, G. Transcutaneous electrical neuromodulation of the cervical spinal cord depends both on the stimulation intensity and the degree of voluntary activity for training. A pilot study. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Al’joboori, Y.; Massey, S.J.; Knight, S.L.; de Donaldson, N.; Duffell, L.D. The effects of adding transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (TSCS) to sit-to-stand training in people with spinal cord injury: A pilot study. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Milosevic, M.; Masugi, Y.; Sasaki, A.; Sayenko, D.G.; Nakazawa, K. On the reflex mechanisms of cervical transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in human subjects. J. Neurophysiol. 2019, 121, 1672–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sayenko, D.G.; Rath, M.; Ferguson, A.; Burdick, J.W.; Havton, L.A.; Edgerton, V.R.; Gerasimenko, Y.P. Self-assisted standing enabled by non-invasive spinal stimulation after spinal cord injury. J. Neurotrauma 2019, 36, 1435–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gerasimenko, Y.; Gorodnichev, R.; Moshonkina, T.; Sayenko, D.; Gad, P.; Reggie Edgerton, V. Transcutaneous electrical spinal-cord stimulation in humans. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2015, 58, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Parhizi, B.; Barss, T.S.; Mushahwar, V.K. Simultaneous Cervical and Lumbar Spinal Cord Stimulation Induces Facilitation of Both Spinal and Corticospinal Circuitry in Humans. Front. Neurosci. 2021, 15, 5103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Taylor, C.; McHugh, C.; Mockler, D.; Minogue, C.; Reilly, R.B.; Fleming, N. Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation and motor responses in individuals with spinal cord injury: A methodological review. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, 260166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bunday, K.L.; Perez, M.A. Motor recovery after spinal cord injury enhanced by strengthening corticospinal synaptic transmission. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22, 2355–2361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Jensen, M.P.; Brownstone, R.M. Mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of pain: Still in the dark after 50 years. Eur. J. Pain 2019, 23, 652–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Murray, L.M.; Knikou, M. Remodeling brain activity by repetitive cervicothoracic transspinal stimulation after human spinal cord injury. Front. Neurol. 2017, 8, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Inanici, F.; Brighton, L.N.; Samejima, S.; Hofstetter, C.P.; Moritz, C.T. Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation Restores Hand and Arm Function after Spinal Cord Injury. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2021, 29, 310–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Sasaki, A.; de Freitas, R.M.; Sayenko, D.G.; Masugi, Y.; Nomura, T.; Nakazawa, K.; Milosevic, M. Low-intensity and short-duration continuous cervical transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation intervention does not prime the corticospinal and spinal reflex pathways in able-bodied subjects. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. de Freitas, R.M.; Sasaki, A.; Sayenko, D.G.; Masugi, Y.; Nomura, T.; Nakazawa, K.; Molesiv, M. Selectivity and excitability of upper-limb muscle activation during cervical transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in humans. J. Appl. Physiol. 2021, 131, 746–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gorodnichev, R.M.; Pivovarova, E.A.; Puhov, A.; Moiseev, S.A.; Savochin, A.; Moshonkina, T.R.; Chsherbakova, N.A.; Kilimnik, V.A.; Selionov, V.; Kozlovskaya, I.B.; et al. Transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the spinal cord: A noninvasive tool for the activation of stepping pattern generators in humans. Hum. Physiol. 2012, 38, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Krenn, M.; Toth, A.; Danner, S.M.; Hofstoetter, U.S.; Minassian, K.; Mayr, W. Selectivity of transcutaneous stimulation of lumbar posterior roots at different spinal levels in humans. Biomed. Tech. 2013, 58 (Suppl. S1A). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hofstoetter, U.S.; McKay, W.B.; Tansey, K.E.; Mayr, W.; Kern, H.; Minassian, K. Modification of spasticity by transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2014, 37, 202–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Kaur Bedi, P.; Kaur, P.; Arumugam, N. Activity Based Therapy and Surface Spinal Stimulation for Recovery of Walking In individual with Traumatic Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Case Report. Available online: http://www.recentscientific.com (accessed on 28 March 2022).
  33. Sutor, T.W.; Ghatas, M.P.; Goetz, L.L.; Lavis, T.D.; Gorgey, A.S. Exoskeleton Training and Trans-Spinal Stimulation for Physical Activity Enhancement After Spinal Cord Injury (EXTra-SCI): An Exploratory Study. Front. Rehabil. Sci. 2022, 2, 9422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sayenko, D.G.; Atkinson, D.A.; Floyd, T.C.; Gorodnichev, R.M.; Moshonkina, T.R.; Harkema, S.J.; Edgerton, V.R.; Gerasimenko, Y.P. Effects of paired transcutaneous electrical stimulation delivered at single and dual sites over lumbosacral spinal cord. Neurosci. Lett. 2015, 609, 229–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Gerasimenko, Y.; Gorodnichev, R.; Puhov, A.; Moshonkina, T.; Savochin, A.; Selionov, V.; Roy, R.R.; Lu, D.C.; Edgerton, V.R. Initiation and modulation of locomotor circuitry output with multisite transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the spinal cord in noninjured humans. J. Neurophysiol. 2015, 113, 834–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sayenko, D.G.; Atkinson, D.A.; Dy, C.J.; Gurley, K.M.; Smith, V.L.; Angeli, C.; Harkema, S.J.; Edgerton, V.R.; Gerasimenko, Y.P. Spinal segment-specific transcutaneous stimulation differentially shapes activation pattern among motor pools in humans. J. Appl. Physiol. 2015, 118, 1364–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Gerasimenko, Y.P.; Lu, D.C.; Modaber, M.; Zdunowski, S.; Gad, P.; Sayenko, D.G.; Morikawa, E.; Haakana, P.; Ferguson, A.; Roy, R.R.; et al. Noninvasive reactivation of motor descending control after paralysis. J. Neurotrauma 2015, 32, 1968–1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Kaur, P.; Kaur Research Scholar, P.; Professor, A. Published by Exercise Fitness & Health Alliance Article no. 253. J. Exerc. Sci. Physiother. 2016, 12, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. McHugh, L.V.; Miller, A.A.; Leech, K.A.; Salorio, C.; Martin, R.H. Feasibility and utility of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation combined with walking-based therapy for people with motor incomplete spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord Ser Cases 2020, 6, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Manson, G.A.; Calvert, J.S.; Ling, J.; Tychhon, B.; Ali, A.; Sayenko, D.G. The relationship between maximum tolerance and motor activation during transcutaneous spinal stimulation is unaffected by the carrier frequency or vibration. Physiol. Rep. 2020, 8, 14397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gerasimenko, Y.; Sayenko, D.; Gad, P.; Kozesnik, J.; Moshonkina, T.; Grishin, A.; Pukhov, A.; Moiseev, S.; Gorodnichev, R.; Selionov, V.; et al. Electrical spinal stimulation, and imagining of lower limb movements to modulate brain-spinal connectomes that control locomotor-like behavior. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hofstoetter, U.S.; Krenn, M.; Danner, S.M.; Hofer, C.; Kern, H.; McKay, W.B.; Mayr, W.; Minassian, K. Augmentation of Voluntary Locomotor Activity by Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation in Motor-Incomplete Spinal Cord-Injured Individuals. Artif. Org. 2015, 39, E176–E186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Samejima, S.; Caskey, C.D.; Inanici, F.; Shrivastav, S.R.; Brighton, L.N.; Pradarelli, J.; Martinez, V.; Steele, K.M.; Saigal, R.; Moritz, C.T. Multisite Transcutaneous Spinal Stimulation for Walking and Autonomic Recovery in Motor-Incomplete Tetraplegia: A Single-Subject Design. Phys. Ther. 2022, 102, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bye, E.A.; Héroux, M.E.; Boswell-Ruys, C.L.; Perez, M.A.; Purcell, M.; Taylor, J.; Lee, B.B.; McCaughey, E.J.; Butler, J.E.; Gandevia, S.C. Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation combined with locomotor training to improve walking ability in people with chronic spinal cord injury: Study protocol for an international multi-centred double-blinded randomised sham-controlled trial (eWALK). Spinal Cord 2022, 60, 491–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Megía García, A.; Serrano-Muñoz, D.; Taylor, J.; Avendaño-Coy, J.; Gómez-Soriano, J. Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation and Motor Rehabilitation in Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2020, 34, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Miller, J.P.; Eldabe, S.; Buchser, E.; Johanek, L.M.; Guan, Y.; Linderoth, B. Parameters of Spinal Cord Stimulation and Their Role in Electrical Charge Delivery: A Review. Neuromodulation 2016, 19, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Electrode characteristics for applications of TSS for motor control in the upper extremities.
Table 1. Electrode characteristics for applications of TSS for motor control in the upper extremities.
(a) Electrode characteristics for applications of TSS for motor control in the upper extremities
First AuthorYearDemographicsCathode SizeCathode LocationAnode LocationChannel Number
Inanici [9]2018SCI; ASIA D, C32.5 cm diameterOne midline at C3–C4 spinous processes; one midline at C6–C7 spinous processesBilateral iliac crests2
Freyvert [8]2018SCI; ASIA B, C5 and higherNot reportedDorsal neck overlying C5 vertebraeAnterior superior iliac spine bilaterally1
Benavides [7]2020SCI; ASIA A–D, C4–C63.2 cm diameterMidline C5–C6 between spinous processesBilateral iliac crests1
Murray [25]2017SCI; ASIA C, C6–710.2 × 5.1 cmMidline overlying C5–T2 spinous processesBilateral clavicles1
Inanici [26]2021SCI; ASIA B–D, C3–C52.5 cm diameterMidline above and below injury levelBilateral iliac crests2
Gad [12]2018SCI; ASIA B–C, C7 and higher2.0 cm diameterOne midline between C3–C4 spinous processes; one midline
between C6–C7 spinous processes
Bilateral iliac crests2
Wu [15]2020AB and SCI; C2–C85 × 10 cmMidline 4 cm caudal to C7 spinous process, arranged longitudinallyHorizontally over anterior midline with caudal edge 2–3 cm above sternal notch1
Kumru [16]2021AB2.0 cm diameterOne midline over spinous processes C3–C4; one midline over spinous processes C6–C7Bilateral iliac crests2
Parhizi [21]2021AB2.5 cm diameterOne midline over C3–C4 spinous processes; one midline over C6–C7 spinous processes; one midline over T11 spinous process; one midline over L1 spinous processesBilateral iliac crests4
Sasaki [27]2021AB0.5 × 0.5 cmMidline over C6 or C7 or T1
spinous processes
Midline on anterior neck1
de Freitas [28]2021AB5.0 × 5.0 cmCathode experiment: over spinous process of C6 vs. C7 vs. T1. Anode experiment: placed at optimum location from cathode experimentCathode experiment: midline over anterior neck. Anode experiment: one anode on anterior neck vs. two anodes bilaterally over distal clavicles vs. two anodes bilaterally over iliac crests vs. one anode 4 cm below cathode on posterior neck.1
Milosevic [18]2018AB5 × 5 cmMidline between C7–T1 spinous processesAnterior midline neck1
(b) Electrode characteristics for applications of TSS for motor control in the lower extremity
First AuthorYearDemographicsCathode SizeCathode LocationAnode LocationChannel Number
Gorodnicheva [29]2012AB2.5 cm diameterMidline between spinous processes T11 and T12Bilateral iliac crests1
Hofstoetter [10]2013SCI; ASIA D, T98 × 13 cmT11/T12 spinous processBilaterally over the lower anterior abdomen.1
Krenn [30]2013AB3 × 12 cm8 cm caudal and 4 cm rostral
around the interspinous space T11–12
Bilateral abdomen7
Hofstoetter [31]2014SCI; ASIA D, C5–T95 cm diameterT11 and T12 spinous processesBilaterally over the lower anterior abdomen in symmetry to the umbilicus1
Bedi [32]2015SCI; ASIA C, L14.5 × 9 cmT10–L1 vertebral levelNot reported1
Sutor [33]2022SCI; ASIA A–C, C4–T1110.2 × 17.8 cmT10/T11 to L4/L5Bilateral iliac crests1
Sayenko [34]2015AB10 mm diameterMidline spinous processes T10 and L1Bilateral iliac crests1 and 2
Gerasimenko [35]2015AB2.5 cm diameterMidline at C5, T11, and/or L1spinous processesBilateral iliac crests3
Sayenko [36]2015AB18 mm diameterBetween the spinous processes of T10 –T11, T11–T12, and
T12–L1 midline
Bilateral iliac crests3
Gerasimenko [37]2015SCI; ASIA A–B2.5 cm diameterMidline between spinous processes T11–T12 or over coccyxBilateral iliac crests2
Minassian [13]2016SCI; ASIA A8 × 13 cmT11 and T12 spinous processesCovering the abdomen1
Bedi [38]2016SCI; ASIA C, T12–L14.5 × 9 cmT10–L1 para-vertebralNot reported1
Shapkova [14]2020SCI; ASIA A–C, C5–L23 x4 cmOver T12 vertebraCentrally over abdomen1
McHugh [39]2020SCI; ASIA C–D, C4–T95 × 10 cmBetween T11–T12 spinous processOver lower abdomen1
Al’joboori [17]2020SCI; ASIA A–D, C5–T105 × 5 cmT10/T11Over T12/L11
Manson [40]2020AB32 mm diameterParallel to the spinous process of L1–L2 vertebraeOver lower abdomen1
Sayenko [19]2019SCI; ASIA A–C, C4–T123.2 cm diameterBetween spinous process of T11/T12 and L1/L2Bilateral iliac crests2
Gad [11]2017SCI; ASIA A, T9–L12.5 cm diameter T11/T12,
5.0 × 10.2 cm rectangle pair at Co1
T11–T12 midline between spinous processes T11–T12
(Simply T11) or over Co1
Bilateral iliac crests2
Gerasimenko [41]2018AB2.5 cm diameterBetween the spinous processes of T11–T12 or L1–L2Bilateral iliac crests1
Hofstoetter [42]2015SCI; ASIA D, C5–T95 cm diameterT11/T12 paraspinallyParaumblically1
Samejima [43]2022SCI; ASIA D, C4–C62.5 cm diameterOver midline at C3/C4, C6/C7, T11, and L1Bilateral iliac crests2
Bye [44]2022SCI; T1–T115 × 10 cmL1/L2Over lower abdomen1
Table 2. Stimulation amplitude for TSS applications with variable motor thresholds.
Table 2. Stimulation amplitude for TSS applications with variable motor thresholds.
ExtremityThreshold LevelFirst AuthorYearAmplitude DeterminationAmplitude
Upper LimbSubmotor thresholdMurray [25]2017Below motor threshold to level
that induced bilateral muscle contraction
68 mA
Wu [15]202080–200% of resting motor
Threshold
102 mA (80% of the motor threshold)
Kumru [16]2021at 80%, 90%, and 110% of RMT of adductor pollicis brevis90 mA (80% of the motor threshold)
Sasaki [27]2021Minimum to induce paresthesia28 mA
Inanici [26]2021To best facilitate each activity120 mA
Motor thresholdFreyvert [8]2018To maximize voluntary hand contraction100 mA
Gad [12]2018To maximize grip strength250 mA
Milosevic [18]2018To evoke responses on ascending portion of recruitment curve of all muscles tested90 mA
Benavides [7]2020To evoke motor output in biceps brachii90 mA
Murray [25]2017Below motor threshold to level
that induced bilateral muscle contraction
68 mA
Supramotor thresholdWu [15]202080–200% of resting motor
Threshold
102 mA (up to 200% of the motor threshold)
Kumru [16]2021At 80%, 90%, and 110% of RMT of adductor pollicis brevis90 mA (110% of the motor threshold)
Non-specificParhizi [21]2021At tolerance capacity70 mA
Inanici [9]2018Unspecified120 mA
de Freitas [28]2021Cathode experiment: 10–100 mA or at pain threshold; anode
experiment: to best produce post-activation depression.
100 mA
Lower LimbSubmotor thresholdHofstoetter [10]2013To produce paresthesia below
motor threshold
18 V
Hofstoetter [31]2014To produce paresthesia below motor threshold22 V
Bedi [32]2015To induce sensory sensationUnspecified
Sayenko [34]201510–50% of maximal response amplitude in the LE musculature100 mA
Bedi [38]2016To induce sensory sensationUnspecified
McHugh [39]2020Maximum tolerable amplitude or
submotor threshold
80 mA
Hofstoetter [42]2015Subthreshold27 V
Shapkova [14]2020In 1 Hz and 3Hz group, 1.3–1.4 × motor threshold. In 67 Hz group, below motor threshold.Unspecified
Samejima [43]2022Below motor threshold75 mA
Motor thresholdGorodnicheva [29]2012To evoke steplike movements100 mA
Krenn [30]2013At tolerance capacity (max 125 mA)125 mA
Gerasimenko [35]2015Based on sensations felt by the subject and the motor output
generated
180 mA
Gerasimenko [37]2015To induce stepping-like movements180 mA
Minassian [13]2016Lower-limb PRM reflex threshold170 mA
Gerasimenko [41]2018To generate involuntary rhythmic stepping-like movements without causing discomfort150 mA
Sayenko [19]2019To maximally facilitate standing150 mA
Manson [40]2020Maximum tolerable amplitudeUnspecified
Al’joboori [17]2020At tolerance capacity or to produce paresthesia, whichever lower110 mA
Sutor [33]2022At the lowest amplitude that produced lower-extremity EMG outputUnspecified
Bye [44]2022100% of amplitude to cause PRM reflexUnspecified
Supramotor thresholdShapkova [14]2020In 1 Hz and 3Hz group, 1.3–1.4 × motor threshold. In 67 Hz group, below motor threshold.Unspecified
UnspecifiedSayenko [36]2015At tolerance capacity (max 100 mA)100 mA
Gad [11]2017To best facilitate locomotor activity200 mA
Table 3. Stimulation frequency pattern in the studies that applied or did not apply carrier frequency.
Table 3. Stimulation frequency pattern in the studies that applied or did not apply carrier frequency.
ExtremityCarrier FrequencyFirst AuthorYearCarrier Frequency (kHz)Stimulation Frequency (Hz)
Upper-Extremity StudiesCarrier frequencyInanici [9]20181030
Gad [12]20181030
Benavides [7]2020Either 5 or 030
Inanici [26]20211030
Kumru [16]20211030
Parhizi [21]20211030
Sasaki [27]20211030
no carrier frequencyMurray [25]2017N/A0.2
Freyvert [8]2018N/A30
Milosevic [18]2019N/ASingle pulse
Wu [15]2020N/A0.2
de Freitas [28]2021N/ATwo 2 ms pulses separated by 50 ms
Lower-Extremity StudiesCarrier frequencyGorodnicheva [29]2012101, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40
Gerasimenko [35]2015105
Bedi [32]20152.520
Gerasimenko [37]20151030 Hz at T11, 5 Hz at coccyx
Bedi [38]20162.530, 50, 70, 90
Gerasimenko [41]2018530 at T11–T12, 0.3 at L1
Sayenko [19]2019105, 15, 25, 30
Manson [40]20205Single pulse 0.2 Hz, continuous 30 Hz
Bye [44]20221020 Hz
Samejima [43]20221030 Hz
no carrier frequencyKrenn [30]2013N/AUnspecified
Hofstoetter [10]2013N/A30
Hofstoetter [31]2014N/A50
Sayenko [34]2015N/A30
Sayenko [36]2015N/AUnspecified
Minassian [13]2016N/A30
Gad [11]2017N/AT11: 30 Hz; coccyx segment: 5 Hz
Shapkova [14]2020N/A1, 3, 67
McHugh [39]2020N/A50
Al’joboori [17]2020N/A30
Sutor [33]2022N/A30
Hofstoetter [42]2015N/A30
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rehman, M.U.; Sneed, D.; Sutor, T.W.; Hoenig, H.; Gorgey, A.S. Optimization of Transspinal Stimulation Applications for Motor Recovery after Spinal Cord Injury: Scoping Review. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 854. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030854

AMA Style

Rehman MU, Sneed D, Sutor TW, Hoenig H, Gorgey AS. Optimization of Transspinal Stimulation Applications for Motor Recovery after Spinal Cord Injury: Scoping Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(3):854. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030854

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rehman, Muhammad Uzair, Dustin Sneed, Tommy W. Sutor, Helen Hoenig, and Ashraf S. Gorgey. 2023. "Optimization of Transspinal Stimulation Applications for Motor Recovery after Spinal Cord Injury: Scoping Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 3: 854. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030854

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop