A database is presented of sensory responses to electrical stimulation of the dorsal neural structures at various spine levels in 106 subjects subjected to epidural spinal cord stimulation. All patients were implanted for chronic pain management and were able to perceive stimulation in the area of pain. All patients entered in this study were able to reliably report their stimulation pattern. Several patients were implanted with more than one electrode array. The electrode arrays were placed in the dorsal epidural space at levels between C-1 and L-1. The structures that were likely involved include the dorsal roots, dorsal root entry zone, dorsal horn, and dorsal columns. At the present time, exact characterization of the structure being stimulated is possible only in limited instances. Various body areas are presented with the correspondent spine levels where implanted electrodes generate paresthesias. Areas that are relatively easy targets for stimulation are the median aspect of the hand, the abdominal wall, the anterior aspect of the thigh, and the foot. Some areas are particularly difficult to cover with stimulation-induced paresthesias; these include the C-2 distribution, the neck, the low back, and the perineum.

No abstract

In order to provide a data bank to allow a more precise and effective Implementation of spinal cord stimulation, a computerized analysis of 1,375 combinations obtained from electrode arrays located in the thoracic and cervical epidural area was performed. 67 electrode arrays implanted in 34 subjects were subjected to analysis. During the Stimulation trial, all the available combinations were systematically tested and the results entered into a computerized database. The study was not meant to analyze the clinical results or the indications of epidural spinal cord stimulation. Parameters studied include position of each electrical contact as related to midline, vertebral level of each contact, distribution of stimulation-induced paresthesiae, and electrical parameters (voltage, rate, pulse width, perception threshold, discomfort threshold, usage range). Analysis of the data allow the surgeon (1) to define the characteristics of the stimulation-induced paresthesiae; (2) to define the spectrum of the electrical parameters used to stimulate the spinal cord; (3) to define the population of implanted electrode arrays/contacts; (4) to study objectively how the position of the electrodes within the spinal canal, their vertebral level and the interelectrode distance affect the electrical parameters and the stimulation-induced responses. The multifactorial systematic analysis of such a large number of combinations provides the basis for further developments in the area of electrical stimulation of the nervous system.

Forty-eight spinal cord injury victims were implanted with an epidural spinal cord stimulation system to treat spasms that had not satisfactorily responded to medical therapy. All the patients were at least 6 months after the injury. The protocol included assessment by independent examiners preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after the implant. Pre- and postoperative data collection included the frequency and severity of the spasms. Combining the frequency and intensity scores into a ‘severity’ score provided a more accurate clinical picture. No patient observed neurological deterioration following the surgical procedure or the neurostimulation treatment. A statistically significant reduction in the severity of the spasms was observed in the follow-up evaluations, with results that progressively increased in time. It appears that spinal cord stimulation is an effective and safe alternative in the management of spasms in spinal cord injury victims. Its exact role in relation to intrathecal baclofen infusion and ablative procedures remains to be defined.

No abstract

No abstract

As a part of the systematic analysis of parameters involved in eletrical epidural spinal cord stimulation therapy, distribution of paresthesiae in accordance with the position of contacts, as related to midline and vertebral level of contacts, was investigated. A preliminary analysis performed for 266 combinations having contacts implanted in the midcervical and low-thoracic vertebral levels showed that the topographical spread of the paresthesiae did not always cover the classical dermatomes. Significant paresthesiae spread was found as follows: C4 – midline, unipolar combinations: the hand, forearm and upperarm, bipolar combinations: the hand, forearm; C4 – lateral, unipolar combinations: the anterior shoulder, forearm, upper arm and hand, bipolar combinations: the hand, forearm and upper arm; T10 – midline, unipolar combinations: the anterior and posterior of thigh, leg, knee, ankle and foot, bipolar combinations: the anterior and posterior thigh, leg, knee and foot; T10 – lateral, unipolar combinations: the abdomen, anterior leg, knee and anterior thigh, bipolar combinations: the anterior thigh, anterior leg, knee and foot. This preliminary analysis suggests that more detailed studies would be worthwhile in the investigation of sensory responses to electrical stimulation of the spinal cord with epidural electrodes. Findings from such investigations could also be useful to extend our present anatomical knowledge of central and peripheral sensory neural structures.

A computerized statistical analysis of 1,100 quadripolar electrode combinations used in epidural spinal cord stimulation therapy for the management of pain was carried out to investigate perception and tolerance thresholds. This analysis showed that the thresholds are higher at high-cervical, mid-cervical, mid-thoracic and low-thoracic spinal levels. It is also higher for the combinations with contacts located in the midline than those implanted laterally. As the contact separation increases, the perception and tolerance thresholds increase in bipolar combinations. Unipolar combinations have the lowest thresholds.