OBJECTIVE: Intraspinal microstimulation (ISMS) is a promising method for activating the spinal cord distal to an injury. The objectives of this study were to examine the ability of chronically implanted stimulating wires within the cervical spinal cord to (1) directly produce forelimb movements, and (2) assess whether ISMS stimulation could improve subsequent volitional control of paretic extremities following injury. APPROACH: We developed a technique for implanting intraspinal stimulating electrodes within the cervical spinal cord segments C6-T1 of Long-Evans rats. Beginning 4 weeks after a severe cervical contusion injury at C4-C5, animals in the treatment condition received therapeutic ISMS 7 hours/day, 5 days/week for the following 12 weeks. MAIN RESULTS: Over 12 weeks of therapeutic ISMS, stimulus-evoked forelimb movements were relatively stable. We also explored whether therapeutic ISMS promoted recovery of forelimb reaching movements. Animals receiving daily therapeutic ISMS performed significantly better than unstimulated animals during behavioural tests conducted without stimulation. Quantitative video analysis of forelimb movements showed that stimulated animals performed better in the movements reinforced by stimulation, including extending the elbow to advance the forelimb and opening the digits. While threshold current to elicit forelimb movement gradually increased over time, no differences were observed between chronically stimulated and unstimulated electrodes suggesting that no additional tissue damage was produced by the electrical stimulation. SIGNIFICANCE: The results indicate that therapeutic intraspinal stimulation delivered via chronic microwire implants within the cervical spinal cord confers benefits extending beyond the period of stimulation, suggesting future strategies for neural devices to promote sustained recovery after injury.
OBJECTIVE: Intraspinal microstimulation (ISMS) is a promising method for activating the spinal cord distal to an injury. The objectives of this study were to examine the ability of chronically implanted stimulating wires within the cervical spinal cord to (1) directly produce forelimb movements, and (2) assess whether ISMS stimulation could improve subsequent volitional control of paretic extremities following injury. APPROACH: We developed a technique for implanting intraspinal stimulating electrodes within the cervical spinal cord segments C6-T1 of Long-Evans rats. Beginning 4 weeks after a severe cervical contusion injury at C4-C5, animals in the treatment condition received therapeutic ISMS 7 hours/day, 5 days/week for the following 12 weeks. MAIN RESULTS: Over 12 weeks of therapeutic ISMS, stimulus-evoked forelimb movements were relatively stable. We also explored whether therapeutic ISMS promoted recovery of forelimb reaching movements. Animals receiving daily therapeutic ISMS performed significantly better than unstimulated animals during behavioural tests conducted without stimulation. Quantitative video analysis of forelimb movements showed that stimulated animals performed better in the movements reinforced by stimulation, including extending the elbow to advance the forelimb and opening the digits. While threshold current to elicit forelimb movement gradually increased over time, no differences were observed between chronically stimulated and unstimulated electrodes suggesting that no additional tissue damage was produced by the electrical stimulation. SIGNIFICANCE: The results indicate that therapeutic intraspinal stimulation delivered via chronic microwire implants within the cervical spinal cord confers benefits extending beyond the period of stimulation, suggesting future strategies for neural devices to promote sustained recovery after injury.
Authors: Emily J Fox; Nicole J Tester; Chetan P Phadke; Preeti M Nair; Claudia R Senesac; Dena R Howland; Andrea L Behrman Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2010-03-18
Authors: Susan Harkema; Yury Gerasimenko; Jonathan Hodes; Joel Burdick; Claudia Angeli; Yangsheng Chen; Christie Ferreira; Andrea Willhite; Enrico Rejc; Robert G Grossman; V Reggie Edgerton Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-05-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marco Aurelio M Freire; Edgard Morya; Jean Faber; Jose Ronaldo Santos; Joanilson S Guimaraes; Nelson A M Lemos; Koichi Sameshima; Antonio Pereira; Sidarta Ribeiro; Miguel A L Nicolelis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elisa J Gonzalez-Rothi; Kristi A Streeter; Marie H Hanna; Anna C Stamas; Paul J Reier; David M Baekey; David D Fuller Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Monzurul Alam; Guillermo Garcia-Alias; Benita Jin; Jonathan Keyes; Hui Zhong; Roland R Roy; Yury Gerasimenko; Daniel C Lu; V Reggie Edgerton Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Kristiina M Hormigo; Lyandysha V Zholudeva; Victoria M Spruance; Vitaliy Marchenko; Marie-Pascale Cote; Stephane Vinit; Simon Giszter; Tatiana Bezdudnaya; Michael A Lane Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2016-08-28 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: L M Mercier; E J Gonzalez-Rothi; K A Streeter; S S Posgai; A S Poirier; D D Fuller; P J Reier; D M Baekey Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Sarah E Mondello; Michael D Sunshine; Amanda E Fischedick; Chet T Moritz; Philip J Horner Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 5.269