Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26792233›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurotrauma2016

Unique Spatiotemporal Neuromodulation of the Lumbosacral Circuitry Shapes Locomotor Success after Spinal Cord Injury.

Prithvi K Shah, Shakthi Sureddi, Monzurul Alam, Hui Zhong, Roland R Roy, V Reggie Edgerton, Yury Gerasimenko

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurotrauma, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Prithvi K Shah1 Division of Rehabilitation Sciences, School of Health Technology and Management, Stony Brook University , Stony Brook, New York.
Shakthi Sureddi3 Department of Neuroscience, University of California , Los Angeles, California.
Monzurul Alam4 Department of Neurosurgery, University of California , Los Angeles, California.
Hui Zhong5 Department of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California , Los Angeles, California.
Roland R Roy5 Department of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California , Los Angeles, California.
V Reggie Edgerton4 Department of Neurosurgery, University of California , Los Angeles, California.
Yury Gerasimenko5 Department of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California , Los Angeles, California.
University of California, Los Angeles · USPavlov Institute of Physiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences · RUStony Brook University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal cord epidural stimulation has resulted in the initiation of voluntary leg movements and improvement in postural, bladder, and sexual function. However, one of the limitations in reaching the full potential of epidural stimulation for therapeutic purposes in humans has been the identification of optimal stimulation configurations that can neuromodulate the spinal cord for stepping. In the present work, we investigated the mechanisms underlying the specificity of interaction between the rostral and caudal spinal cord circuitries in enabling locomotion in spinal rats (n = 10) by epidural spinal cord stimulation. By using unique spatiotemporal epidural stimulation parameters of the lumbar and sacral spinal cords, a robust stepping pattern in spinal rats was observed with only six training sessions and as early as 3 weeks post-injury. Electrophysiological evidence reveals that in addition to frequency of stimulation pulses at the stimulation sites, the relative timing between stimulation pulses applied at the lumbar (L2) and sacral (S1) segments of the spinal cord heavily impacted stepping performance. Best stepping was established at a higher stimulation frequency (40 Hz vs. 5, 10, 15, and 20Hz) and at specific relative time-intervals between the stimulation pulses (L2 pulse applied at 18-25 msec after the onset of the S1 pulse; S1 pulse applied 0-7 msec after the L2 pulse). Our data suggest that controlling pulse-to-pulse timing at multiple stimulation sources provides a novel strategy to optimize spinal stepping by fine-tuning the physiological state of the locomotor networks. These findings hold direct relevance to the clinician who will incorporate electrical stimulation strategies for optimizing control of locomotion after complete paralysis.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyAnimalsFemaleLocomotionLumbosacral PlexusNeural PathwaysRatsRats, Sprague-DawleySpinal Cord Injurieselectromyographyepidural stimulationlocomotionlocomotor networksneuromodulationratspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID26792233
PMCPMC5035935
OpenAlexW2337582962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.