Literature DB >> 31501600

Sensory feedback restoration in leg amputees improves walking speed, metabolic cost and phantom pain.

Francesco Maria Petrini1,2,3, Marko Bumbasirevic4,5, Giacomo Valle3,6, Vladimir Ilic7, Pavle Mijović8, Paul Čvančara9, Federica Barberi2,3,6, Natalija Katic10, Dario Bortolotti2, David Andreu11, Knut Lechler12, Aleksandar Lesic4,5, Sanja Mazic13, Bogdan Mijović8, David Guiraud11, Thomas Stieglitz9,14,15, Asgeir Alexandersson12, Silvestro Micera3,6, Stanisa Raspopovic16,17.   

Abstract

Conventional leg prostheses do not convey sensory information about motion or interaction with the ground to above-knee amputees, thereby reducing confidence and walking speed in the users that is associated with high mental and physical fatigue1-4. The lack of physiological feedback from the remaining extremity to the brain also contributes to the generation of phantom limb pain from the missing leg5,6. To determine whether neural sensory feedback restoration addresses these issues, we conducted a study with two transfemoral amputees, implanted with four intraneural stimulation electrodes7 in the remaining tibial nerve (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03350061). Participants were evaluated while using a neuroprosthetic device consisting of a prosthetic leg equipped with foot and knee sensors. These sensors drive neural stimulation, which elicits sensations of knee motion and the sole of the foot touching the ground. We found that walking speed and self-reported confidence increased while mental and physical fatigue decreased for both participants during neural sensory feedback compared to the no stimulation trials. Furthermore, participants exhibited reduced phantom limb pain with neural sensory feedback. The results from these proof-of-concept cases provide the rationale for larger population studies investigating the clinical utility of neuroprostheses that restore sensory feedback.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31501600     DOI: 10.1038/s41591-019-0567-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Med        ISSN: 1078-8956            Impact factor:   53.440


  41 in total

Review 1.  [Clinical updates on phantom limb pain : German version].

Authors:  Joachim Erlenwein; Martin Diers; Jennifer Ernst; Friederike Schulz; Frank Petzke
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 1.107

Review 2.  Artificial referred sensation in upper and lower limb prosthesis users: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michael Gonzalez; Alex Bismuth; Christina Lee; Cynthia A Chestek; Deanna H Gates
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Uncertainty-based inference of a common cause for body ownership.

Authors:  Marie Chancel; H Henrik Ehrsson; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 8.713

4.  Microtopographical patterns promote different responses in fibroblasts and Schwann cells: A possible feature for neural implants.

Authors:  Sahba Mobini; Cary A Kuliasha; Zachary A Siders; Nicole A Bohmann; Syed-Mustafa Jamal; Jack W Judy; Christine E Schmidt; Anthony B Brennan
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 4.396

5.  A comprehensive model-based framework for optimal design of biomimetic patterns of electrical stimulation for prosthetic sensation.

Authors:  Karthik Kumaravelu; Tucker Tomlinson; Thierri Callier; Joseph Sombeck; Sliman J Bensmaia; Lee E Miller; Warren M Grill
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 5.379

6.  Practical real-time MEG-based neural interfacing with optically pumped magnetometers.

Authors:  Marc M Van Hulle; Richard Bowtell; Matthew J Brookes; Benjamin Wittevrongel; Niall Holmes; Elena Boto; Ryan Hill; Molly Rea; Arno Libert; Elvira Khachatryan
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2021-08-10       Impact factor: 7.431

Review 7.  Toward higher-performance bionic limbs for wider clinical use.

Authors:  Dario Farina; Ivan Vujaklija; Rickard Brånemark; Anthony M J Bull; Hans Dietl; Bernhard Graimann; Levi J Hargrove; Klaus-Peter Hoffmann; He Helen Huang; Thorvaldur Ingvarsson; Hilmar Bragi Janusson; Kristleifur Kristjánsson; Todd Kuiken; Silvestro Micera; Thomas Stieglitz; Agnes Sturma; Dustin Tyler; Richard F Ff Weir; Oskar C Aszmann
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 25.671

8.  Generating artificial sensations with spinal cord stimulation in primates and rodents.

Authors:  Amol P Yadav; Shuangyan Li; Max O Krucoff; Mikhail A Lebedev; Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr; Miguel A L Nicolelis
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 9.184

9.  A cutaneous mechanoneural interface for neuroprosthetic feedback.

Authors:  Shriya S Srinivasan; Hugh M Herr
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 29.234

Review 10.  Cut wires: The Electrophysiology of Regenerated Tissue.

Authors:  Alexis L Lowe; Nitish V Thakor
Journal:  Bioelectron Med       Date:  2021-02-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.