Long-Term Paired Associative Stimulation Enhances Motor Output of the Tetraplegic Hand

Aleksandra Tolmacheva, Sarianna Savolainen, Erika Kirveskari, Pantelis Lioumis, Linda Kuusela, Nina Brandstack, Aarne Ylinen, Jyrki P Mäkelä, Anastasia Shulga, Aleksandra Tolmacheva, Sarianna Savolainen, Erika Kirveskari, Pantelis Lioumis, Linda Kuusela, Nina Brandstack, Aarne Ylinen, Jyrki P Mäkelä, Anastasia Shulga

Abstract

A large proportion of spinal cord injuries (SCI) are incomplete. Even in clinically complete injuries, silent non-functional connections can be present. Therapeutic approaches that can strengthen transmission in weak neural connections to improve motor performance are needed. Our aim was to determine whether long-term delivery of paired associative stimulation (PAS, a combination of transcranial magnetic stimulation [TMS] with peripheral nerve stimulation [PNS]) can enhance motor output in the hands of patients with chronic traumatic tetraplegia, and to compare this technique with long-term PNS. Five patients (4 males; age 38-68, mean 48) with no contraindications to TMS received 4 weeks (16 sessions) of stimulation. PAS was given to one hand and PNS combined with sham TMS to the other hand. Patients were blinded to the treatment. Hands were selected randomly. The patients were evaluated by a physiotherapist blinded to the treatment. The follow-up period was 1 month. Patients were evaluated with Daniels and Worthingham's Muscle Testing (0-5 scale) before the first stimulation session, after the last stimulation session, and 1 month after the last stimulation session. One month after the last stimulation session, the improvement in the PAS-treated hand was 1.02 ± 0.17 points (p < 0.0001, n = 100 muscles from 5 patients). The improvement was significantly higher in PAS-treated than in PNS-treated hands (176 ± 29%, p = 0.046, n = 5 patients). Long-term PAS might be an effective tool for improving motor performance in incomplete chronic SCI patients. Further studies on PAS in larger patient cohorts, with longer stimulation duration and at earlier stages after the injury, are warranted.

Keywords: paired associative stimulation; peripheral electrical stimulation; plasticity; spinal cord injury; transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Conflict of interest statement

PL reports personal fees from Nexstim Ltd. outside the submitted work. Other authors have nothing to report; no competing financial interests exist.

Figures

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.
Time line of the experiment and the summary of the stimulation protocol. MEP, motor-evoked potential; PAS, paired associative stimulation; PNS, peripheral nerve stimulation; SO, stimulator output; TMS, transcranial magnetic stimulation.
FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.
Improvement in the PAS-treated and PNS-treated hand during stimulation (second vs. first evaluation), follow-up period (third vs. second evaluation), and in total (third vs. first evaluation). PAS, paired associative stimulation; PNS, peripheral nerve stimulation.

References

    1. Ackery A., Tator C., and Krassioukov A. (2004). A global perspective on spinal cord injury epidemiology. J. Neurotrauma 21, 1355–1370
    1. Squair J.W., Bjerkefors A., Inglis J.T., Lam T., and Carpenter M.G. (2016). Cortical and vestibular stimulation reveal preserved descending motor pathways in individuals with motor-complete spinal cord injury. J. Rehabil. Med. 48, 589–596
    1. Field-Fote E.C. (2015). Exciting recovery: augmenting practice with stimulation to optimize outcomes after spinal cord injury. Prog. Brain Res. 218, 103–126
    1. Field-Fote E.C., Yang J.F., Basso D.M., and Gorassini M.A. (2017). Supraspinal control predicts locomotor function and forecasts responsiveness to training after spinal cord injury. J. Neurotrauma 34, 1813–1825
    1. Nicoll R.A. (2017). A brief history of long-term potentiation. Neuron 93, 281–290
    1. McPherson J.G., Miller R.R., and Perlmutter S.I. (2015). Targeted, activity-dependent spinal stimulation produces long-lasting motor recovery in chronic cervical spinal cord injury. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112, 12193–12198
    1. Nishimura Y., Perlmutter S.I., Eaton R.W., and Fetz E.E. (2013). Spike-timing-dependent plasticity in primate corticospinal connections induced during free behavior. Neuron 80, 1301–1309
    1. Ahmed Z. (2013). Electrophysiological characterization of spino-sciatic and cortico-sciatic associative plasticity: modulation by trans-spinal direct current and effects on recovery after spinal cord injury in mice. J. Neurosci. 33, 4935–4946
    1. Stefan K., Kunesch E., Cohen L.G., Benecke R., and Classen J. (2000). Induction of plasticity in the human motor cortex by paired associative stimulation. Brain 123, Pt. 3, 572–584
    1. Wolters A., Sandbrink F., Schlottmann A., Kunesch E., Stefan K., Cohen L.G., Benecke R., and Classen J. (2003). A temporally asymmetric Hebbian rule governing plasticity in the human motor cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 89, 2339–2345
    1. Wolters A., Schmidt A., Schramm A., Zeller D., Naumann M., Kunesch E., Benecke R., Reiners K., and Classen J. (2005). Timing-dependent plasticity in human primary somatosensory cortex. J. Physiol. 565, 1039–1052
    1. Carson R.G., and Kennedy N.C. (2013). Modulation of human corticospinal excitability by paired associative stimulation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 823.
    1. Taylor J.L., and Martin P.G. (2009). Voluntary motor output is altered by spike-timing-dependent changes in the human corticospinal pathway. J. Neurosci. 29, 11708–11716
    1. Bunday K.L., and Perez M.A. (2012). Motor recovery after spinal cord injury enhanced by strengthening corticospinal synaptic transmission. Curr. Biol. 22, 2355–2361
    1. Gordon T. (2016). Electrical stimulation to enhance axon regeneration after peripheral nerve injuries in animal models and humans. Neurotherapeutics 13, 295–310
    1. Chakravarthy K., Nava A., Christo P.J., and Williams K. (2016). Review of recent advances in peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 20, 60.
    1. Rossi S., Hallett M., Rossini P.M., Pascual-Leone A., and Safety of TMS Consensus Group. (2009). Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin. Neurophysiol. 120, 2008–2039
    1. Doucet B.M., Lam A., and Griffin L. (2012). Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for skeletal muscle function. Yale J. Biol. Med. 85, 201–215
    1. Harvey L.A., Glinsky J.V., and Bowden J.L. (2016). The effectiveness of 22 commonly administered physiotherapy interventions for people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord 54, 914–923
    1. Shulga A., Lioumis P., Zubareva A., Brandstack N., Kuusela L., Kirveskari E., Savolainen S., Ylinen A., and Makela J.P. (2016). Long-term paired associative stimulation can restore voluntary control over paralyzed muscles in incomplete chronic spinal cord injury patients. Spinal Cord Ser. Cases 2, 16016
    1. Uy J., Ridding M.C., Hillier S., Thompson P.D., and Miles T.S. (2003). Does induction of plastic change in motor cortex improve leg function after stroke? Neurology 61, 982–984
    1. Harel N.Y., and Carmel J.B. (2016). Paired stimulation to promote lasting augmentation of corticospinal circuits. Neural Plast. 2016, 7043767.[Epub 2016].
    1. Shulga A., Zubareva A., Lioumis P., and Makela J.P. (2016). Paired associative stimulation with high-frequency peripheral component leads to enhancement of corticospinal transmission at wide range of interstimulus intervals. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10, 470.
    1. Hislop H.J., Avers D., and Brown M. (2014). Daniels and Worthingham's Muscle Testing: Techniques of Manual Examination and Performance Testing, 9th ed. Elsevier: p. 528
    1. Shulga A., Lioumis P., Kirveskari E., Savolainen S., Makela J.P., and Ylinen A. (2015). The use of F-response in defining interstimulus intervals appropriate for LTP-like plasticity induction in lower limb spinal paired associative stimulation. J. Neurosci. Methods 242C, 112–117
    1. Di Lazzaro V., Ziemann U., and Lemon R.N. (2008). State of the art: physiology of transcranial motor cortex stimulation. Brain Stimul. 1, 345–362
    1. Poo M.M. (2001). Neurotrophins as synaptic modulators. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2, 24–32
    1. Malenka R.C., and Bear M.F. (2004). LTP and LTD: an embarrassment of riches. Neuron 44, 5–21
    1. Midrio M. (2006). The denervated muscle: facts and hypotheses. A historical review. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 98, 1–21
    1. Blankenburg F., Ruff C.C., Bestmann S., Bjoertomt O., Eshel N., Josephs O., Weiskopf N., and Driver J. (2008). Interhemispheric effect of parietal TMS on somatosensory response confirmed directly with concurrent TMS-fMRI. J. Neurosci. 28, 13202–13208
    1. Ward N.S., and Cohen L.G. (2004). Mechanisms underlying recovery of motor function after stroke. Arch. Neurol. 61, 1844–1848
    1. van den Berg M.E., Castellote J.M., Mahillo-Fernandez I., and de Pedro-Cuesta J. (2010). Incidence of spinal cord injury worldwide: a systematic review. Neuroepidemiology 34, 184–192; discussion 192.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren