Epidural Spinal Cord Stimulation for Spasticity: a Systematic Review of the Literature

• Published in: World neurosurgery Vol. 183; pp. 227 - 238.e5
• Main Authors: Jung, Youngkyung, Breitbart, Sara, Malvea, Anahita, Bhatia, Anuj, Ibrahim, George M., Gorodetsky, Carolina
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-03-2024
• Subjects: Internal pulse generator; Neuromodulation; Radiofrequency stimulator; Spasticity; Spinal cord stimulation; IPG; SCS; H-reflex; CI; Spinal cord stimulation; Spasticity; ADL; Neuromodulation; Internal pulse generator; ROBINS-I; H/M ratio; ITB; GRADE; Radiofrequency stimulator; EMG; MAS
• ISSN: 1878-8750; 1878-8769; 1878-8769
• DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.12.158

Spasticity is a form of muscle hypertonia secondary to various diseases, including traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, and multiple sclerosis. Medical treatments are available; however, these often result in insufficient clinical response. This review evaluates the role of epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of spasticity and associated functional outcomes.
A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Embase, CENTRAL, and MEDLINE databases. We included studies that used epidural SCS to treat spasticity. Studies investigating functional electric stimulation, transcutaneous SCS, and animal models of spasticity were excluded. We also excluded studies that used SCS to treat other symptoms such as pain.
Thirty-four studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled rate of subjective improvement in spasticity was 78% (95% confidence interval, 64%–91%; I2 = 77%), 40% (95% confidence interval, 7%–73%; I2 = 88%) for increased H-reflex threshold or decreased Hoffman reflex/muscle response wave ratio, and 73% (65%–80%; I2 = 50%) for improved ambulation. Patients with spinal causes had better outcomes compared with patients with cerebral causes. Up to 10% of patients experienced complications including infections and hardware malfunction.
Our review of the literature suggests that SCS may be a safe and useful tool for the management of spasticity; however, there is significant heterogeneity among studies. The quality of studies is also low. Further studies are needed to fully evaluate the usefulness of this technology, including various stimulation paradigms across different causes of spasticity.