Targeting bladder function with network-specific epidural stimulation after chronic spinal cord injury

April N Herrity, Sevda C Aslan, Samineh Mesbah, Ricardo Siu, Karthik Kalvakuri, Beatrice Ugiliweneza, Ahmad Mohamed, Charles H Hubscher, Susan J Harkema, April N Herrity, Sevda C Aslan, Samineh Mesbah, Ricardo Siu, Karthik Kalvakuri, Beatrice Ugiliweneza, Ahmad Mohamed, Charles H Hubscher, Susan J Harkema

Abstract

Profound dysfunctional reorganization of spinal networks and extensive loss of functional continuity after spinal cord injury (SCI) has not precluded individuals from achieving coordinated voluntary activity and gaining multi-systemic autonomic control. Bladder function is enhanced by approaches, such as spinal cord epidural stimulation (scES) that modulates and strengthens spared circuitry, even in cases of clinically complete SCI. It is unknown whether scES parameters specifically configured for modulating the activity of the lower urinary tract (LUT) could improve both bladder storage and emptying. Functional bladder mapping studies, conducted during filling cystometry, identified specific scES parameters that improved bladder compliance, while maintaining stable blood pressure, and enabled the initiation of voiding in seven individuals with motor complete SCI. Using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging and finite element modeling, specific neuroanatomical structures responsible for modulating bladder function were identified and plotted as heat maps. Data from this pilot clinical trial indicate that scES neuromodulation that targets bladder compliance reduces incidences of urinary incontinence and provides a means for mitigating autonomic dysreflexia associated with bladder distention. The ability to initiate voiding with targeted scES is a key step towards regaining volitional control of LUT function, advancing the application and adaptability of scES for autonomic function.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scatter plots of the pressure–volume measurements obtained during urodynamics without scES (open circles) and from mapping with BC-scES (filled in circles) in participants using intermittent catheterization (A), n = 4, and in those using suprapubic catheters (B), n = 3. Ellipses show the 95% confidence interval for each participant after removing outliers. Vertical and horizontal lines indicate normative thresholds for minimum bladder capacity and maximum detrusor pressure, respectively. Blood pressure responses at maximum capacity for each participant are displayed next to each corresponding pressure–volume plot with optimal ranges targeted between 110–120 mmHg denoted by double horizontal lines. Note the shift toward normative bladder capacity, bladder pressure, and/or blood pressure with scES. BC-scES bladder compliance spinal cord epidural stimulation, cmH2O centimeters of water, mL milliliters, mmHg millimeters of mercury.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Improvement in bladder compliance using targeted scES parameters (BC-scES). (A) Example of detrusor pressure (black, top panel) and bladder capacity (red, top panel), sphincter EMG (µV, middle panel), blood pressure (mmHg, black, systolic—top line, diastolic—bottom line, lower panel) and heartrate (red, lower panel) in the absence of scES in a participant with chronic SCI (B24); Note the detrusor overactivity with incontinence at low capacity, and a simultaneous rise in systolic blood pressure; (B) in the same participant using BC-scES and parameters adjusted for bladder compliance. Maintenance of bladder compliance (increased bladder capacity without a change in detrusor pressure in response to bladder filling) was intensity (V, pink bar) dependent and participant- specific. Electrodes: cathodes = black; anodes = red; inactive = white.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of bladder capacity, detrusor pressure and systolic blood pressure without scES relative to optimized BC-scES parameters for participants intermittently catheterizing, n = 4 (AC); and participants with a suprapubic catheter, n = 3 (DF). BC-scES mapping significantly improved (reduced) detrusor pressure and systolic blood pressure at maximum capacity in those using intermittent catheterization and detrusor pressure in the suprapubic group.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Improvement in ability to initiate bladder voiding with targeted BV-scES. Example of detrusor pressure (upper panel) and sphincter EMG (µv, lower panel) in the absence of scES (A) in an individual with chronic SCI (B07) (Leak: 0 mL; Capacity: 622 mL); (B) Representative cystometry recording in the same individual using BV-scES and parameters adjusted for void initiation (VE: 51.2%, Capacity: 496 mL); Voiding initiation was intensity (pink bar) dependent and participant-specific. Note the rise in detrusor pressure timed with relaxation of sphincter EMG activity and a return of detrusor pressure to baseline. (C) Effective and non-effective BV-scES parameters for promoting volitional voiding during urodynamics mapping sessions for B07. Initiating a void occurred only in the presence of optimized BV-scES. Reflexive leaks are indicated as involuntary. Light gray indicates the voiding efficiency (VE) for a single leak/void and dark gray indicates total voiding efficiency for a mapping session when multiple void attempts were possible. Mapping sessions were approximately 1 week apart. VE = [Void Amount/Void + Residual] × 100; Electrodes in B: cathodes = black; anodes = red; inactive = white.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Heatmap plots of the amount of percent total electric charge delivered across each segment that resulted in best bladder storage outcomes (A) and bladder voiding (B) for each individual (x-axis) and the areas of the spinal cord that were directly targeted by the stimulation (y-axis) as well as the corresponding map configurations (black—cathodes; red—anodes) and stimulation parameters; (C) Example of MRI-based 3D model of the spinal cord at lumbosacral enlargement and location of scES paddle electrode with respect to the spinal cord levels. Distribution of electric current density is highlighted with heatmap. Simulations are performed using Sim4Life platform. BC bladder compliance, BV bladder voiding, L lumbar, S sacral, scES spinal cord epidural stimulation, T thoracic.

References

    1. Hamid R, et al. Epidemiology and pathophysiology of neurogenic bladder after spinal cord injury. World J. Urol. 2018;36(10):1517–1527. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2301-z.
    1. Ditunno PL, et al. Who wants to walk? Preferences for recovery after SCI: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Spinal Cord. 2008;46(7):500–506. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3102172.
    1. Piatt JA, et al. Problematic secondary health conditions among adults with spinal cord injury and its impact on social participation and daily life. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2016;39(6):693–698. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2015.1123845.
    1. de Groat WC, Yoshimura N. Changes in afferent activity after spinal cord injury. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2010;29(1):63–76. doi: 10.1002/nau.20761.
    1. Van Kerrebroeck PE, et al. The morbidity due to lower urinary tract function in spinal cord injury patients. Paraplegia. 1993;31(5):320–329.
    1. Zeilig G, et al. Long-term morbidity and mortality after spinal cord injury: 50 years of follow-up. Spinal Cord. 2000;38:563. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101043.
    1. Krassioukov A, et al. Evaluation and management of autonomic dysreflexia and other autonomic dysfunctions: Preventing the highs and lows: Management of blood pressure, sweating, and temperature dysfunction. Top. Spinal Cord Inj. Rehabil. 2021;27(2):225–290. doi: 10.46292/sci2702-225.
    1. Hubscher CH, et al. Improvements in bladder, bowel and sexual outcomes following task-specific locomotor training in human spinal cord injury. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0190998. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190998.
    1. French JS, Anderson-Erisman KD, Sutter M. What do spinal cord injury consumers want? A review of spinal cord injury consumer priorities and neuroprosthesis from the 2008 neural interfaces conference. Neuromodulation. 2010;13(3):229–231. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2009.00252.x.
    1. Anderson KD. Targeting recovery: Priorities of the spinal cord-injured population. J. Neurotrauma. 2004;21(10):1371–1383. doi: 10.1089/neu.2004.21.1371.
    1. Bourbeau D, et al. Needs, priorities, and attitudes of individuals with spinal cord injury toward nerve stimulation devices for bladder and bowel function: A survey. Spinal Cord. 2020;58(11):1216–1226. doi: 10.1038/s41393-020-00545-w.
    1. Angeli CA, et al. Recovery of over-ground walking after chronic motor complete spinal cord injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018;379(13):1244–1250. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803588.
    1. Angeli CA, et al. Altering spinal cord excitability enables voluntary movements after chronic complete paralysis in humans. Brain. 2014;137(Pt 5):1394–1409. doi: 10.1093/brain/awu038.
    1. Gill ML, et al. Neuromodulation of lumbosacral spinal networks enables independent stepping after complete paraplegia. Nat. Med. 2018;24(11):1677–1682. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0175-7.
    1. Harkema S, et al. Effect of epidural stimulation of the lumbosacral spinal cord on voluntary movement, standing, and assisted stepping after motor complete paraplegia: A case study. Lancet. 2011;377(9781):1938–1947. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60547-3.
    1. Minassian K, et al. Stepping-like movements in humans with complete spinal cord injury induced by epidural stimulation of the lumbar cord: Electromyographic study of compound muscle action potentials. Spinal Cord. 2004;42(7):401–416. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101615.
    1. Wagner FB, et al. Targeted neurotechnology restores walking in humans with spinal cord injury. Nature. 2018;563(7729):65–71. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0649-2.
    1. Aslan SC, et al. Epidural spinal cord stimulation of lumbosacral networks modulates arterial blood pressure in individuals with spinal cord injury-induced cardiovascular deficits. Front. Physiol. 2018;9:565. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00565.
    1. Harkema SJ, et al. Epidural spinal cord stimulation training and sustained recovery of cardiovascular function in individuals with chronic cervical spinal cord injury. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75(12):1569–1571. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.2617.
    1. Harkema SJ, et al. Normalization of blood pressure with spinal cord epidural stimulation after severe spinal cord injury. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018;12:83. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00083.
    1. Herrity AN, et al. Improvements in bladder function following activity-based recovery training with epidural stimulation after chronic spinal cord injury. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2020;14:614691. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2020.614691.
    1. Herrity AN, et al. Lumbosacral spinal cord epidural stimulation improves voiding function after human spinal cord injury. Sci. Rep. 2018;8(1):8688. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26602-2.
    1. Legg Ditterline BE, et al. Restoration of autonomic cardiovascular regulation in spinal cord injury with epidural stimulation: A case series. Clin. Auton. Res. 2021;31:317–320. doi: 10.1007/s10286-020-00693-2.
    1. Legg Ditterline BE, et al. Beneficial cardiac structural and functional adaptations after lumbosacral spinal cord epidural stimulation and task-specific interventions: A pilot study. Front. Neurosci. 2020;14(1066):554018. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.554018.
    1. Walter M, et al. Epidural spinal cord stimulation acutely modulates lower urinary tract and bowel function following spinal cord injury: A case report. Front. Physiol. 2018;9:1816. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01816.
    1. Darrow D, et al. Epidural spinal cord stimulation facilitates immediate restoration of dormant motor and autonomic supraspinal pathways after chronic neurologically complete spinal cord injury. J. Neurotrauma. 2019;36(15):2325–2336. doi: 10.1089/neu.2018.6006.
    1. Squair JW, et al. Neuroprosthetic baroreflex controls haemodynamics after spinal cord injury. Nature. 2021;590(7845):308–314. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03180-w.
    1. Hubscher CH, et al. Effect of different forms of activity-based recovery training on bladder, bowel, and sexual function after spinal cord injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2021;102:865–873. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.11.002.
    1. Chancellor MB, et al. Long-term patterns of use and treatment failure with anticholinergic agents for overactive bladder. Clin. Ther. 2013;35(11):1744–1751. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2013.08.017.
    1. Weld KJ, Graney MJ, Dmochowski RR. Differences in bladder compliance with time and associations of bladder management with compliance in spinal cord injured patients. J. Urol. 2000;163(4):1228–1233. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67730-0.
    1. Benevento BT, Sipski ML. Neurogenic bladder, neurogenic bowel, and sexual dysfunction in people with spinal cord injury. Phys. Ther. 2002;82(6):601–612. doi: 10.1093/ptj/82.6.601.
    1. Gad PN, et al. Non-invasive neuromodulation of spinal cord restores lower urinary tract function after paralysis. Front. Neurosci. 2018;12:432. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00432.
    1. Inanici F, et al. Transcutaneous electrical spinal stimulation promotes long-term recovery of upper extremity function in chronic tetraplegia. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2018;26(6):1272–1278. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2834339.
    1. Phillips AA, et al. An autonomic neuroprosthesis: Noninvasive electrical spinal cord stimulation restores autonomic cardiovascular function in individuals with spinal cord injury. J. Neurotrauma. 2018;35(3):446–451. doi: 10.1089/neu.2017.5082.
    1. Sayenko DG, et al. Spinal segment-specific transcutaneous stimulation differentially shapes activation pattern among motor pools in humans. J. Appl. Physiol. 2015;118(11):1364–1374. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01128.2014.
    1. Sayenko DG, et al. Effects of paired transcutaneous electrical stimulation delivered at single and dual sites over lumbosacral spinal cord. Neurosci. Lett. 2015;609:229–234. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2015.10.005.
    1. Sayenko DG, et al. Self-assisted standing enabled by non-invasive spinal stimulation after spinal cord injury. J. Neurotrauma. 2019;36(9):1435–1450. doi: 10.1089/neu.2018.5956.
    1. Hofstoetter US, et al. Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation induces temporary attenuation of spasticity in individuals with spinal cord injury. J. Neurotrauma. 2020;37(3):481–493. doi: 10.1089/neu.2019.6588.
    1. Kreydin E, et al. Transcutaneous electrical spinal cord neuromodulator (TESCoN) improves symptoms of overactive bladder. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2020;14:1. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2020.00001.
    1. Niu T, et al. A proof-of-concept study of transcutaneous magnetic spinal cord stimulation for neurogenic bladder. Scientific reports. 2018;8(1):12549. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-30232-z.
    1. Solinsky R, Specker-Sullivan L, Wexler A. Current barriers and ethical considerations for clinical implementation of epidural stimulation for functional improvement after spinal cord injury. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2020;43(5):653–656. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2019.1666240.
    1. Rosier, P. et al. 5th International Consultation on Incontinence: Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: Urodynamics Testing. Incontinence (International Continence Society, 2013).
    1. Whelton PK, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018;71(19):2199–2269. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.005.
    1. Hubscher CH, et al. Improvements in bladder, bowel and sexual outcomes following task-specific locomotor training in human spinal cord injury. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0190998. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190998.
    1. de Groat WC, Griffiths D, Yoshimura N. Neural control of the lower urinary tract. Compr. Physiol. 2015;5(1):327–396.
    1. Chang HY, et al. Serotonergic drugs and spinal cord transections indicate that different spinal circuits are involved in external urethral sphincter activity in rats. Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol. 2007;292(3):F1044–F1053. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00175.2006.
    1. Karnup SV, de Groat WC. Propriospinal neurons of L3–L4 segments involved in control of the rat external urethral sphincter. Neuroscience. 2020;425:12–28. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.11.013.
    1. Truitt WA, Coolen LM. Identification of a potential ejaculation generator in the spinal cord. Science. 2002;297(5586):1566–1569. doi: 10.1126/science.1073885.
    1. Chéhensse C, et al. Human spinal ejaculation generator. Ann. Neurol. 2017;81(1):35–45. doi: 10.1002/ana.24819.
    1. Chang HH, et al. Spinal cord stimulation ameliorates detrusor over-activity and visceromotor pain responses in rats with cystitis. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2019;38(1):116–122. doi: 10.1002/nau.23827.
    1. Abud EM, et al. Spinal stimulation of the upper lumbar spinal cord modulates urethral sphincter activity in rats after spinal cord injury. Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol. 2015;308(9):F1032–F1040. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00573.2014.
    1. Chang HH, et al. Mapping and neuromodulation of lower urinary tract function using spinal cord stimulation in female rats. Exp. Neurol. 2018;305:26–32. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2018.03.007.
    1. de Groat WC, Yoshimura N. Afferent nerve regulation of bladder function in health and disease. Handb. Exp. Pharmacol. 2009;194:91–138. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-79090-7_4.
    1. de Groat WC, Yoshimura N. Anatomy and physiology of the lower urinary tract. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2015;130:61–108. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63247-0.00005-5.
    1. Lindström S, et al. The neurophysiological basis of bladder inhibition in response to intravaginal electrical stimulation. J. Urol. 1983;129(2):405–410. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)52127-8.
    1. Wheeler JS, Jr, Walter JS, Zaszczurynski PJ. Bladder inhibition by penile nerve stimulation in spinal cord injury patients. J. Urol. 1992;147(1):100–103. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)37145-8.
    1. Prévinaire JG, et al. Short-term effect of pudendal nerve electrical stimulation on detrusor hyperreflexia in spinal cord injury patients: Importance of current strength. Paraplegia. 1996;34(2):95–99.
    1. Kirkham APS, et al. The acute effects of continuous and conditional neuromodulation on the bladder in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2001;39(8):420–428. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101177.
    1. Horvath EE, et al. Conditional and continuous electrical stimulation increase cystometric capacity in persons with spinal cord injury. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2010;29(3):401–407.
    1. Lee YH, Creasey GH. Self-controlled dorsal penile nerve stimulation to inhibit bladder hyperreflexia in incomplete spinal cord injury: A case report. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2002;83(2):273–277. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.28817.
    1. Bourbeau DJ, et al. Genital nerve stimulation increases bladder capacity after SCI: A meta-analysis. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2018;41(4):426–434. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2017.1281372.
    1. Linderoth B, Foreman RD. Physiology of spinal cord stimulation: Review and update. Neuromodulation. 1999;2(3):150–164. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1403.1999.00150.x.
    1. Buonocore M, Bonezzi C, Barolat G. Neurophysiological evidence of antidromic activation of large myelinated fibres in lower limbs during spinal cord stimulation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33(4):E90–E93. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181642a97.
    1. Fowler CJ, Griffiths D, de Groat WC. The neural control of micturition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2008;9(6):453–466. doi: 10.1038/nrn2401.
    1. de Groat WC. Mechanisms underlying the recovery of lower urinary tract function following spinal cord injury. Paraplegia. 1995;33(9):493–505.
    1. de Groat WC, et al. Neural control of the urethra. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. Suppl. 2001;207:35–43.
    1. Beck L, et al. Impact of long-term epidural electrical stimulation enabled task-specific training on secondary conditions of chronic paraplegia in two humans. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2021;44:800–805. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2020.1739894.
    1. Hubli M, Gee CM, Krassioukov AV. Refined assessment of blood pressure instability after spinal cord injury. Am. J. Hypertens. 2014;28(2):173–181. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpu122.
    1. Liu N, et al. Iatrogenic urological triggers of autonomic dysreflexia: A systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2015;53(7):500–509. doi: 10.1038/sc.2015.39.
    1. Walter M, et al. Prediction of autonomic dysreflexia during urodynamics: A prospective cohort study. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1040-8.
    1. Huang YH, et al. Autonomic dysreflexia during urodynamic examinations in patients with suprasacral spinal cord injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2011;92(9):1450–1454. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.03.024.
    1. Mesbah S, et al. Predictors of volitional motor recovery with epidural stimulation in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury. Brain. 2021;144:420–433. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa423.
    1. Dalmose AL, et al. Conditional stimulation of the dorsal penile/clitoral nerve may increase cystometric capacity in patients with spinal cord injury. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2003;22(2):130–137. doi: 10.1002/nau.10031.
    1. Hansen J, et al. Treatment of neurogenic detrusor overactivity in spinal cord injured patients by conditional electrical stimulation. J. Urol. 2005;173(6):2035–2039. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000158160.11083.1b.
    1. Goldman HB, et al. Dorsal genital nerve stimulation for the treatment of overactive bladder symptoms. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2008;27(6):499–503. doi: 10.1002/nau.20544.
    1. Bourbeau DJ, Gustafson KJ, Brose SW. At-home genital nerve stimulation for individuals with SCI and neurogenic detrusor overactivity: A pilot feasibility study. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2019;42(3):360–370. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2017.1422881.
    1. Brose SW, Bourbeau DJ, Gustafson KJ. Genital nerve stimulation is tolerable and effective for bladder inhibition in sensate individuals with incomplete SCI. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2018;41(2):174–181. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2017.1279817.
    1. Lee YH, et al. Detrusor and blood pressure responses to dorsal penile nerve stimulation during hyperreflexic contraction of the bladder in patients with cervical cord injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2003;84(1):136–140. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2003.50075.
    1. Boggs JW, et al. Frequency-dependent selection of reflexes by pudendal afferents in the cat. J. Physiol. 2006;577(Pt 1):115–126. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2006.111815.
    1. Li X, et al. Frequency-dependent effects on bladder reflex by saphenous nerve stimulation and a possible action mechanism of tibial nerve stimulation in cats. Int. Neurourol. J. 2021;25(2):128–136. doi: 10.5213/inj.2040304.152.
    1. Woock JP, Yoo PB, Grill WM. Activation and inhibition of the micturition reflex by penile afferents in the cat. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2008;294(6):R1880–R1889. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00029.2008.
    1. Tai C, et al. Pudendal-to-bladder reflex in chronic spinal-cord-injured cats. Exp. Neurol. 2006;197(1):225–234. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2005.09.013.
    1. Yoo PB, Grill WM. Minimally-invasive electrical stimulation of the pudendal nerve: A pre-clinical study for neural control of the lower urinary tract. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2007;26(4):562–569. doi: 10.1002/nau.20376.
    1. Dimitrijevic MR, Gerasimenko Y, Pinter MM. Evidence for a spinal central pattern generator in humans. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1998;860:360–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb09062.x.
    1. Jilge B, et al. Initiating extension of the lower limbs in subjects with complete spinal cord injury by epidural lumbar cord stimulation. Exp. Brain Res. 2004;154(3):308–326. doi: 10.1007/s00221-003-1666-3.
    1. Hultborn H. State-dependent modulation of sensory feedback. J. Physiol. 2001;533(Pt 1):5–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.0005b.x.
    1. Lempka SF, et al. Patient-specific analysis of neural activation during spinal cord stimulation for pain. Neuromodulation. 2020;23(5):572–581. doi: 10.1111/ner.13037.
    1. Zander HJ, et al. Anatomical and technical factors affecting the neural response to epidural spinal cord stimulation. J. Neural Eng. 2020;17(3):036019. doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ab8fc4.
    1. Marino RJ, et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2003;26(Suppl 1):S50–S56. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2003.11754575.
    1. Waring WP, 3rd, et al. 2009 review and revisions of the international standards for the neurological classification of spinal cord injury. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2010;33(4):346–352. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2010.11689712.
    1. Leitner L, et al. Urodynamic investigation: A valid tool to define normal lower urinary tract function? PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0163847. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163847.
    1. Heesakkers JP, et al. Bladder filling by autologous urine production during cystometry: A urodynamic pitfall! Neurourol. Urodyn. 2003;22(3):243–245. doi: 10.1002/nau.10108.
    1. Klau GW, et al. Human-guided search. J. Heuristics. 2010;16(3):289–310. doi: 10.1007/s10732-009-9107-5.
    1. Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine Bladder management for adults with spinal cord injury: A clinical practice guideline for health-care providers. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2006;29(5):527–573.
    1. Schafer W, et al. Good urodynamic practices: Uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2002;21(3):261–274. doi: 10.1002/nau.10066.
    1. Abrams P, et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: Report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2002;187(1):116–126. doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.125704.
    1. Mesbah S, et al. Predictors of volitional motor recovery with epidural stimulation in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury. Brain. 2021;144(2):420–433. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa423.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner