Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32365340›Full record

ArticleJournal of neural engineering2020

Anatomical and technical factors affecting the neural response to epidural spinal cord stimulation.

Hans J Zander, Robert D Graham, Carlos J Anaya, Scott F Lempka

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neural engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06587841 (Noninvasive Spinal Cord Neuromodulation to Improve Lower Urinary Tract Function After Spinal Cord Injury in Ukrainian War Veterans), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06587841 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Noninvasive Spinal Cord Neuromodulation to Improve Lower Urinary Tract Function After Spinal Cord Injury in Ukrainian War Veterans

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of British ColumbiaRan2024 to 2027Enrolled60ConditionsSpinal Cord Injuries, Bowel Dysfunction, Sexual Dysfunction, Autonomic DysfunctionArmsSpinal COrd NEuromodulation™ (SCONE™) for transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (TSCS)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Biophysics of Frequency-Dependent Variation in Paresthesia and Pain Relief during Spinal Cord Stimulation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  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

4 authors.

Hans J ZanderDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9720-9553
Robert D GrahamDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9795-4614
Carlos J AnayaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9306-784X
Scott F LempkaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0964-311X

Funding

Kilohertz Frequency Alternating Current Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain ReliefR01NS089530 · NINDS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KILGORE, KEVIN L. · 2015 to 2018
$2.4M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS089530
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a common neurostimulation therapy to treat chronic pain. Computational models represent a valuable tool to study the potential mechanisms of action of SCS and to optimize the design and implementation of SCS technologies. However, it is imperative that these computational models include the appropriate level of detail to accurately predict the neural response to SCS and to correlate model predictions with clinical outcomes. Therefore, the goal of this study was to investigate several anatomic and technical factors that may affect model-based predictions of neural activation during thoracic SCS. APPROACH: We developed computational models that consisted of detailed finite element models of the lower thoracic spinal cord, surrounding tissues, and implanted SCS electrode arrays. We positioned multicompartment models of sensory axons within the spinal cord to calculate the activation threshold for each sensory axon. We then investigated how activation thresholds changed as a function of several anatomical variables (e.g. spine geometry, dorsal rootlet anatomy), stimulation type (i.e. voltage-controlled vs. current-controlled), electrode impedance, lead position, lead type, and electrical properties of surrounding tissues (e.g. dura conductivity, frequency-dependent conductivity). MAIN

resultsSeveral anatomic and modeling factors produced significant percent differences or errors in activation thresholds. Rostrocaudal positioning of the cathode with respect to the vertebrae had a large effect (up to 32%) on activation thresholds. Variability in electrode impedance produced significant changes in activation thresholds for voltage-controlled stimulation (38% to 51%), but had little effect on activation thresholds for current-controlled stimulation (less than 13%). Changing the dura conductivity also produced significant differences in activation thresholds. SIGNIFICANCE: This study demonstrates several anatomic and technical factors that can affect the neural response to SCS. These factors should be considered in clinical implementation and in future computational modeling studies of thoracic SCS.

Indexed as

Spinal Cord StimulationAxonsElectrodes, ImplantedEpidural SpaceSpinal Cord

Identifiers

PMID32365340
PMCPMC8351789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.