ArticleSpinal cord series and cases2020
Spinal cord stimulation and rehabilitation in an individual with chronic complete L1 paraplegia due to a conus medullaris injury: motor and functional outcomes at 18 months.
Article in Spinal cord series and cases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synergistic implications of combinatorial rehabilitation approaches using spinal stimulation on therapeutic outcomes in spinal cord injury.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Review
- Established and Emerging Therapies in Acute Spinal Cord Injury.Neurospine · 2022Article
- The 2020 Yearbook of Neurorestoratology.Journal of neurorestoratology · 2021Review
- Management of Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Review of the Literature.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Review
- Enabling Health Equity for persons with disability due to spinal cord injury.Spinal cord series and cases · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEpidural electrical stimulation of the conus medullaris has helped facilitate native motor recovery in individuals with complete cervicothoracic spinal cord injuries (SCI). A theorized mechanism of clinical improvement includes supporting central pattern generators intrinsic to the conus medullaris. Because spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are approved for the treatment of neuropathic pain, we were able to test this experimental therapy in a subject with complete L1 paraplegia and neuropathic genital pain due to a traumatic conus injury. CASE PRESENTATION: An otherwise healthy 48-year-old male with chronic complete L1 paraplegia with no zones of partial preservation (ZPP) and intractable neuropathic genital pain presented to our group seeking nonmedical pain relief and any possible help with functional restoration. After extensive evaluation, discussion, and consent, we proceeded with SCS implantation at the conus and an intensive outpatient physical therapy regimen consistent with the recent SCI rehabilitation literature. DISCUSSION: Intraoperatively, no electromyography (EMG) could be elicited with epidural conus stimulation. At 18 months after implantation, his motor ZPPs had advanced from L1 to L5 on the left and from L1 to L3 on the right. Qualitative increases in lower extremity resting state EMG amplitudes were noted, although there was no consistent evidence of voluntary EMG or rhythmic locomotive leg movements. Three validated functional and quality of life (QoL) surveys demonstrated substantial improvements. The modest motor response compared to the literature suggests likely critical differences in the anatomy of such a low injury. However, the change in ZPPs and QoL suggest potential for neuroplasticity even in this patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.