| Literature DB >> 32218765 |
Jasmine M Hope1,2, Ryan Z Koter1, Stephen P Estes1, Edelle C Field-Fote1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Control of muscles about the ankle joint is an important component of locomotion and balance that is negatively impacted by spinal cord injury (SCI). Volitional control of the ankle dorsiflexors (DF) is impaired by damage to pathways descending from supraspinal centers. Concurrently, spasticity arising from disrupted organization of spinal reflex circuits, further erodes control. The association between neurophysiological changes (corticospinal and spinal) with volitional ankle control (VAC) and spasticity remains unclear. The goal of this scoping review was to synthesize what is known about how changes in corticospinal transmission and spinal reflex excitability contribute to disrupted ankle control after SCI. We followed published guidelines for conducting a scoping review, appraising studies that contained a measure of corticospinal transmission and/or spinal reflex excitability paired with a measure of VAC and/or spasticity. We examined studies for evidence of a relationship between neurophysiological measures (either corticospinal tract transmission or spinal reflex excitability) with VAC and/or spasticity. Of 1,538 records identified, 17 studies were included in the review. Ten of 17 studies investigated spinal reflex excitability, while 7/17 assessed corticospinal tract transmission. Four of the 10 spinal reflex studies examined VAC, while 9/10 examined ankle spasticity. The corticospinal tract transmission studies examined only VAC. While current evidence suggests there is a relationship between neurophysiological measures and ankle function after SCI, more studies are needed. Understanding the relationship between neurophysiology and ankle function is important for advancing therapeutic outcomes after SCI. Future studies to capture an array of corticospinal, spinal, and functional measures are warranted.Entities:
Keywords: Hoffman-reflex; clonus; corticospinal tract; motor-evoked potentials (MEPs); spastic gait; spinal reflex circuit; stiffness; transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)
Year: 2020 PMID: 32218765 PMCID: PMC7078326 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00166
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1Spinal pathways. Spinal pathways that likely contribute to ankle control and the development of spasticity including reciprocal inhibition, presynaptic inhibition, and non-reciprocal Ib inhibition.
Detailed search terms.
| SCI | (Spinal Cord Injury [Title/Abstract] OR SCI [Title/Abstract] OR spinal damage [Title/Abstract] OR spine damage [Title/Abstract] OR spine injury [Title/Abstract] OR spinal injury [Title/Abstract]) |
| CST | (Corticospinal Excitability OR CST OR Corticospinal OR corticospinal descending drive OR corticospinal OR TMS OR transcranial magnetic stimulation) |
| SPINAL | (Spinal reflex circuit OR reflex OR Hoffmann reflex OR H-reflex OR hyperreflexia OR hypertonia OR spinal reflex OR stretch reflex OR monosynaptic reflex) |
| DF | Control of ankle dorsiflexor OR ankle OR dorsiflexor OR tibialis anterior OR TA OR walking/physiology [MeSH Terms] OR Ankle joint/physiopathology [MeSH Terms] OR Ankle joint/innervation [MeSH Terms] OR Exercise therapy/methods [MeSH Terms] OR Gait Disorders [MeSH Terms] OR Gait [MeSH Terms]) |
| PF | ([Control of ankle plantar flexors OR ankle OR plantar flexors OR soleus OR walking/physiology [MeSH Terms] OR Ankle joint/physiopathology [MeSH Terms] OR Ankle joint/innervation [MeSH Terms] OR Exercise therapy/methods [MeSH Terms] OR Gait Disorders [MeSH Terms] OR Gait [MeSH Terms]]) |
The initial search term categories were combined in the following ways across 3 databases: 1. SCI + CST+ Spinal+ DF+PF, 2. SCI + CST + DF, 3. SCI + CST + PF, 4. SCI + Spinal + DF, and 5. SCI + Spinal + PF.
Figure 2PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA flow diagram of the Screening process followed during the scoping review (29). For more information, visit www.prisma-statement.org.
Study characteristics and participant demographics.
| Manella et al. ( | Examine reliability and construct validity of drop test to quantify ankle clonus in persons with SCI and compare results with the SCATS and H/M ratio | A–D | C2 to L1 LOI, Evidence of clonus | 8.9 y | 39.6 ± 13 | N/A | N/A | ||
| Piazza et al. ( | Examine the effects of leg-cycling on conditioned H-reflex excitability and how it relates to lower extremity function after miSCI | C to D | C5-T10 LOI, capable of cycling | 16 ± 3 weeks | 44 ± 5 | Non-injured: | 34 ± 3 | ||
| Yamaguchi et al. ( | Compare effect of anodal tDCS and PES on RI and ankle movement in miSCI | C to D | C1 to T11, 1 | 4.5 ± 4.2 y | 51.8 ± 10.7 | Non-injured: | 50.7 ± 8.9 | ||
| Smith et al. ( | Assess changes in H-reflex in different positions after locomotor training in persons with SCI | A to D | C1 to T10 LOI | 4.3 y | 37.53 | N/A | N/A | ||
| Manella and Field-Fote ( | 1. Investigate effects of LT on measures of spasticity and walking. 2. Assess association of change in walking speed with measures of reflex activity 3. Establish sensitivity to change and validity of PF RTA | C or D | C4 to L1 LOI, Evidence of clonus in some participants | 8.9 y | Locomotor cohort: | Locomotor cohort: 35.1 | Non-injured: | 27.3 | |
| Manella et al. ( | 1. Examine effects of different operant conditioning interventions on ankle motor control, spasticity, and walking related measures in persons with miSCI. 2. Explore relationship between changes in neurophysiological and clinical outcome measures. | D | Positive ankle clonus, Median LL of TA group: C7; Median LL of SOL group: C5 | TA group: 10.8 ± 10.0 y; | Total: | TA cohort: 44.2; SOL cohort: 45.2 | N/A | N/A | |
| Adams and Hicks ( | Examine effects of BWSTT and TTS on spasticity and motor neuron excitability in chronic SCI | A to C | C5 to T10 LOI, stable spasticity, primary wheelchair user | 5.0 ± 4.4 y | 37.1 ± 7.7 | N/A | N/A | ||
| Murillo et al. ( | Examine the effect of RF vibration on clinical and neurophysiological outcome measures of spasticity in SCI | A to D | C3 to T11 LOI; lower limb spasticity ≥ 1.5 (MAS) | 5.6 y ± 1.9 months | 36.0 ± 10.6 | Non-injured: | 33.8 ± 9.4 | ||
| Downes et al. ( | Examine reflex actions of MG group Ib afferent stimulation on SOL H-reflex excitability and spasticity in persons with SCI | Both cSCI and iSCI | C4 to T10 LOI | 16 mos | 30 | Non-injured: | 25 | ||
| Faist et al. ( | Assess effect of femoral nerve stimulation on SOL H-reflex activity in SCI. Examine association of spasticity and PI | Both cSCI and iSCI | LOI not reported | 27.5 mos | 34.8 | Non-injured: | Non-injured age range: 21-59; Hemiplegic mean age: 49.6 | ||
| Barthélemy et al. ( | Examine the correlation of CST function and measures of gait and ankle function after SCI | D | C1 to L1 LOI | 12 y | 43.4 | Non-injured: | 45 | ||
| Labruyère et al. ( | Assess deficits in quick and accurate movements in miSCI by combining TMS, EMG, and a response time task and comparing differences in clinical characteristics. | D | T2 to L4 LOI only | 6.3 ± 5.5 y | n = 15(10 M, 5 F) | 50.2 ± 12.4 | Non-injured: | 50.1 ± 12.3 | |
| Barthélemy et al. ( | Examine the relationship between parameters that may reflect CST function and physical foot drop deficit observed after SCI | D | C to L LOI; ability to walk 10m | 12 ± 11 y | 43 ± 14 | Non-injured: | 42 ± 16 | ||
| Wirth et al. ( | Examine ankle DF timing during gait and in supine to CST conductivity and measures of strength and gait speed in persons with and without SCI. | C or D | C2 to T12 | 2.7 ± 3.5 y | 58.3 ± 10.7 | Non-injured: | 59.2 ± 11.3 | ||
| Wirth et al. ( | Examine the effects of CST damage on ankle dexterity and MMV in individuals with miSCI and stroke | miSCI | C3 to L5 LOI | 13.3 ± 31.7 mos | 62.3 ± 8.3 | Stroke: | Stroke 65.8 ± 10.5; Non-injured: 63.3 ± 10.7 | ||
| Wirth et al. ( | Examine the relationship between ankle dorsiflexor strength, MVC, and MMV with CST integrity and with walking capacity in persons with miSCI | C or D | C3 to L1 LOI | Strength | Strength | N/A | N/A | ||
| Wirth et al. ( | Examine recovery of ankle DF in miSCI via neurophysiological assessment of CST function and functional parameters | C or D | C3 to T12 LOI | All subjects tested at 1,3, and 6 mos post-injury | 53.7 ± 18.5 months | Non-injured: n = 12 | 54.0 ± 18.0 | ||
One subject lacked sacral sparing and had an AIS A classification, but had motor function equivalent to AIS D.
SRC, Spinal Reflex Circuitry; CST, corticospinal tract.
.
Is there a relationship between SRC excitability and volitional ankle control?
| Piazza et al. ( | Interventional | Leg-cycling | Plantar cutaneomuscular conditioned SOL | Strength (TA and Triceps Surae manual muscle score) | Yes | |
| Yamaguchi et al. ( | Interventional | Anodal tDCS combined with PES | SOL H-reflexes in response to RI and PI | Ankle movement/tapping, Active ankle ROM | Yes | |
| Manella et al. ( | Interventional | Operant conditioning: TA EMG activation increase OR SOL H-reflex decrease | SOL H-reflexes in response to RI, PI, and LFD | Toe/foot clearance during walking, ankle movement/tapping, strength (DF and PF), active ROM (DF) | Yes | |
| Downes et al. ( | Observational | N/A | Ib conditioned-SOL H-reflex | Strength (DF and PF) | No |
SOL, soleus; TA, tibialis anterior; tDCS, transcranial direct current stimulation; PES, patterned electrical stimulation ; RI, reciprocal inhibition; PI, presynaptic inhibition; ROM, active range of motion; EMG, electromyography; LFD, low frequency depression; DF, dorsiflexor; PF, plantar flexor.
“Yes” indicates that there is evidence that at least one electrophysiological measure had an association with at least one relevant functional measure.
Is there a relationship between SRC excitability and ankle spasticity?
| Faist et al. ( | Observational | N/A | PI (Quadriceps), SOL H/M ratio | Hypertonia (Achilles tendon reflex, Ashworth scale) | No | |
| Downes et al. ( | Observational | N/A | Ib conditioned-SOL H-reflex | Hypertonia (Achilles tendon reflex; tone of the ankle DF, PF) | No | |
| Adams and Hicks ( | Interventional | BWSTT v. TTS | SOL H/M ratio | Clonus duration (SCATS-Clonus) | No | |
| Murillo et al. ( | Interventional | Focal vibration (RF) | SOL H/M ratio | Clonus duration and # of oscillations | Yes | |
| Manella and Field-Fote ( | Interventional AND Observational | Locomotor training | SOL H/M ratio | Clonus duration, # of oscillations, PF RTA (Drop test), gait speed | Yes | |
| Manella et al. ( | Interventional | Operant conditioning: TA activation increase OR Soleus H-reflex suppression | SOL H-reflex: RI, PI, and LFD | Clonus duration, PF RTA | Yes | |
| Manella et al. ( | Observational | N/A | SOL H/M ratio | # of oscillations (Drop test) | Yes | |
| Smith et al. ( | Interventional | Locomotor training (Lokomat) | SOL H/M ratio | Clonus duration and # of oscillations (via soleus EMG analysis during walking) | Yes | |
| Piazza et al. ( | Interventional | Leg-cycling | Plantar | Hypertonia (MAS), clonus duration (SCATS clonus score) | Yes |
PI, presynaptic inhibition; SOL, soleus; DF, dorsiflexor; PF, plantar flexor; BWSTT, body-weight supported treadmill training; TTS, tilt table standing; SCATS, Spinal Cord Assessment Tool for Spastic Reflexes; RF, rectus femoris; RTA, reflex threshold angle; EMG, electromyography; RI reciprocal inhibition; LFD, low frequency depression.
“Yes” indicates that there is evidence that at least one electrophysiological measure had an association with at least one relevant functional measure.
Is there a relationship between CST transmission and volitional ankle control?
| Barthélemy et al. ( | Observational | N/A | TA MEP | Gait kinematics toe clearance, gait speed, walking distance | Direct | Yes |
| Labruyère et al. ( | Observational | N/A | MEP amplitude, latency | Muscle strength (DF and PF), stepping task | Indirect | Yes |
| Barthélemy et al. ( | Observational | N/A | TA MEP amplitude, latency | Gait kinematics – foot drop | Direct | Yes |
| Wirth et al. ( | Observational | N/A | MEP amplitude, latency | Timing of ankle dorsiflexion during gait and in supine at 3 frequencies, DF MMV, TA muscle strength (MVC) | Direct and Indirect | Yes |
| Wirth et al. ( | Observational | N/A | TA MEP amplitude, latency | Ankle dexterity, MMV | Simultaneous Direct | Yes |
| Wirth et al. ( | Observational | N/A | MEP amplitude, latency | TA muscle strength (AIS motor score, MVC), DF MMV, gait speed, walking ability (WISCI) | Direct | Yes |
| Wirth et al. ( | Observational | N/A | MEP amplitude, latency | ankle dexterity, MMV, TA strength (AIS motor score, MVC), gait speed | Direct | Yes |
TA, tibialis anterior; MEP, motor evoked potential; DF, dorsiflexor; PF, plantar flexor; MMV, maximal movement velocity; MVC, maximal volitional contraction; AIS, ASIA impairment scale; WISCI, Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury.
“Yes” indicates that there is evidence that at least one electrophysiological measure had an association with at least one relevant functional measure.