search
Back to results

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Paired With FES Cycling Post SCI

Primary Purpose

Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury

Status
Not yet recruiting
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Canada
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)
functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling
Sponsored by
Western University, Canada
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury focused on measuring incomplete spinal cord injury, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, functional electrical stimulation cycling, lower extremity function, walking speed, muscle strength, feasibility

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria: adult having motor incomplete SCI with level C or D on the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) with the lesion at any level of the cord resulting from either traumatic or non-traumatic etiology who are at least one-year post-injury. having non-progressive SCI being able to walk independently for 10 meters without help from another person Exclusion Criteria: other orthopedic or neurological implications that affect the lower extremity function contraindications to FES (e.g., implanted electronic devices, unhealed bone fractures, sever contractures, extreme osteoporosis or osteoarthritis) contraindications to rTMS (e.g., metal implants, history of seizure, cochlear implants)

Sites / Locations

  • Parkwood Institute

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

Sham Comparator

Arm Label

Treatment group

Control group

Arm Description

Participants of this group will receive active rTMS along with real FES cycling.

Participants of this group will receive sham rTMS along with real FES cycling.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Time taken to complete the recruitment of 12 participants
This outcome will be evaluated through descriptive data. This outcome will be analyzed to evaluate the feasibility of the protocol.
Proportion of participants recruited from the total number screened
This outcome will be evaluated through descriptive data. This outcome will be analyzed to evaluate the feasibility of the protocol.
Number of sessions attended by each participant
This outcome will be evaluated through descriptive data. This outcome will be analyzed to evaluate the tolerability of the protocol.
Number of dropouts in each group
This outcome will be evaluated through descriptive data. This outcome will be analyzed to evaluate the tolerability of the protocol.
Willingness of participants to undergo therapy
This outcome will be evaluated through descriptive data. This outcome will be analyzed to evaluate the tolerability of the protocol. The willingness of participation will be collected on an 11-point numerical rating scale with 'not at all willing' at 0, and 'very willing' at 10 (measured at baseline).
Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events
This outcome will be evaluated through descriptive data. Safety will be presented as any adverse reaction reported on verbal questioning at each session. The number of participants reporting adverse reactions, and the duration and severity of the adverse reactions will be reported.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Walking speed
This instrumental outcome is collected using a pressure sensor gait mat.
Step length
This instrumental outcome is collected using a pressure sensor gait mat.
Step width
This instrumental outcome is collected using a pressure sensor gait mat.
Cadence
This instrumental outcome is collected using a pressure sensor gait mat.
Timed Up and Go (TUG) test
This instrumental outcome will be collected using Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs).
Sit-to-stand test
This instrumental outcome will be collected using Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs).
Postural sway test
This instrumental outcome will be collected using Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs).
Lower Extremity Motor Score (LEMS)
A blinded physiotherapist will be hired to collect this clinical outcome. Lower Extremity Motor Score is rated from 0 to 5* as follows: 0= Total paralysis Palpable or visible contraction Active movement, full range of motion (ROM) when gravity is eliminated Active movement, full ROM against gravity Active movement, full ROM against gravity, and moderate resistance in muscle-specific position (Normal) Active movement, full ROM against gravity, and full resistance in a muscle-specific position expected from a healthy person 5*= (Normal) Active movement, full ROM against gravity, and sufficient resistance to be considered normal if identified inhibiting factors (i.e., pain, disuse) were not present NT = Not testable (i.e., due to immobilization, sever pain that can prevent the grading of the patient, amputation of the limb, or contracture of >50% of the range of motion) Higher scores in this outcome mean better result.
Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury (WISCI) II scale
A blinded physiotherapist will be hired to collect this clinical outcome. Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury version II scale is rated from 0 to 20 with the higher scores showing better results.

Full Information

First Posted
July 10, 2023
Last Updated
August 4, 2023
Sponsor
Western University, Canada
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT05975606
Brief Title
Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Paired With FES Cycling Post SCI
Official Title
Exploring the Effect of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Paired With Functional Electrical Stimulation to Improve Lower Extremity Function Following Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
August 2023
Overall Recruitment Status
Not yet recruiting
Study Start Date
August 2023 (Anticipated)
Primary Completion Date
March 2024 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
March 2024 (Anticipated)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Western University, Canada

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
This project is randomized controlled trial which will explore the effect of pairing repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) with Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) Cycling on lower extremity function in people with incomplete spinal cord injury and compare the effects to each one of these interventions alone.
Detailed Description
Following a spinal cord injury, people often have decreased strength and balance in their legs, making it difficult to walk. To improve leg function in people with spinal cold injuries, the investigators can use electrical stimulation on muscles while participants are cycling to increase the muscle activation and nerve connections. Another way to improve the nerve connections to the muscles is by stimulating the brain directly. Previous research has looked at the effects of each of these treatments, but they have not been used together. In this study, the investigators will pair both electrical stimulation on the legs during cycling with brain stimulation or a sham brain stimulation to improve recovery and determine if using these methods together results in better outcomes, such as increased walking speed. Participants will attend training sessions for six weeks, twice per week. Each person will first receive the active or sham brain stimulation at the beginning of the session for 30 minutes and then they will receive the electrical stimulation on their legs while cycling for 60 minutes. Participants will be evaluated before the start of the treatment, in the middle of the study, at the final session, and again two weeks after the last session of the treatment. Assessments will include clinical tests of gait, balance, and strength. Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) and a pressure sensor gait mat will be used to evaluate the gait and balance parameters.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury
Keywords
incomplete spinal cord injury, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, functional electrical stimulation cycling, lower extremity function, walking speed, muscle strength, feasibility

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Model Description
This protocol involves two groups of participants: intervention group and control group. Intervention group will receive real rTMS and FES cycling and control group will receive sham rTMS and FES cycling. The results of these groups are then evaluated at several stages of the study.
Masking
ParticipantCare ProviderOutcomes Assessor
Masking Description
Participants are blinded to their groups. Research assistant and physiotherapist who are responsible for conducting assessment sessions are also blinded to participants group. All the participants will be randomized to groups using opaque envelopes blocked by four and stratified by AIS score.
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
14 (Anticipated)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Treatment group
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Participants of this group will receive active rTMS along with real FES cycling.
Arm Title
Control group
Arm Type
Sham Comparator
Arm Description
Participants of this group will receive sham rTMS along with real FES cycling.
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)
Intervention Description
rTMS will be applied to primary motor cortex of the brain.
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling
Intervention Description
FES will be applied to muscles associated in cycling: quadriceps, hamstrings, tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius, soleus.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Time taken to complete the recruitment of 12 participants
Description
This outcome will be evaluated through descriptive data. This outcome will be analyzed to evaluate the feasibility of the protocol.
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Proportion of participants recruited from the total number screened
Description
This outcome will be evaluated through descriptive data. This outcome will be analyzed to evaluate the feasibility of the protocol.
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Number of sessions attended by each participant
Description
This outcome will be evaluated through descriptive data. This outcome will be analyzed to evaluate the tolerability of the protocol.
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Number of dropouts in each group
Description
This outcome will be evaluated through descriptive data. This outcome will be analyzed to evaluate the tolerability of the protocol.
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Willingness of participants to undergo therapy
Description
This outcome will be evaluated through descriptive data. This outcome will be analyzed to evaluate the tolerability of the protocol. The willingness of participation will be collected on an 11-point numerical rating scale with 'not at all willing' at 0, and 'very willing' at 10 (measured at baseline).
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events
Description
This outcome will be evaluated through descriptive data. Safety will be presented as any adverse reaction reported on verbal questioning at each session. The number of participants reporting adverse reactions, and the duration and severity of the adverse reactions will be reported.
Time Frame
8 weeks
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Walking speed
Description
This instrumental outcome is collected using a pressure sensor gait mat.
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Step length
Description
This instrumental outcome is collected using a pressure sensor gait mat.
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Step width
Description
This instrumental outcome is collected using a pressure sensor gait mat.
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Cadence
Description
This instrumental outcome is collected using a pressure sensor gait mat.
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Timed Up and Go (TUG) test
Description
This instrumental outcome will be collected using Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs).
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Sit-to-stand test
Description
This instrumental outcome will be collected using Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs).
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Postural sway test
Description
This instrumental outcome will be collected using Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs).
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Lower Extremity Motor Score (LEMS)
Description
A blinded physiotherapist will be hired to collect this clinical outcome. Lower Extremity Motor Score is rated from 0 to 5* as follows: 0= Total paralysis Palpable or visible contraction Active movement, full range of motion (ROM) when gravity is eliminated Active movement, full ROM against gravity Active movement, full ROM against gravity, and moderate resistance in muscle-specific position (Normal) Active movement, full ROM against gravity, and full resistance in a muscle-specific position expected from a healthy person 5*= (Normal) Active movement, full ROM against gravity, and sufficient resistance to be considered normal if identified inhibiting factors (i.e., pain, disuse) were not present NT = Not testable (i.e., due to immobilization, sever pain that can prevent the grading of the patient, amputation of the limb, or contracture of >50% of the range of motion) Higher scores in this outcome mean better result.
Time Frame
8 weeks
Title
Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury (WISCI) II scale
Description
A blinded physiotherapist will be hired to collect this clinical outcome. Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury version II scale is rated from 0 to 20 with the higher scores showing better results.
Time Frame
8 weeks
Other Pre-specified Outcome Measures:
Title
Global Rating of Change (GRC) scale
Description
Evaluation of the participants' impact will be collected through a GRC questionnaire in each assessment session. Global Rating Scale will ask participants to rate their walking abilities and overall recovery of the lower limb function from the time that they began the treatment until now. This scale is rated from -7 to 7 as follows: 7: A very great deal worse 6: A great deal worse 5: Quite a bit worse 4: Moderately worse 3: Somewhat worse 2: A little bit worse 1: A tiny bit worse (almost the same) 0: About the same 1: A tiny bit better (almost the same) 2: A little bit better 3: Somewhat better 4: Moderately better 5: Quite a bit better 6: A great deal better 7: A very great deal better Higher scores in this outcome mean better results.
Time Frame
8 weeks

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: adult having motor incomplete SCI with level C or D on the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) with the lesion at any level of the cord resulting from either traumatic or non-traumatic etiology who are at least one-year post-injury. having non-progressive SCI being able to walk independently for 10 meters without help from another person Exclusion Criteria: other orthopedic or neurological implications that affect the lower extremity function contraindications to FES (e.g., implanted electronic devices, unhealed bone fractures, sever contractures, extreme osteoporosis or osteoarthritis) contraindications to rTMS (e.g., metal implants, history of seizure, cochlear implants)
Central Contact Person:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Janelle Unger, PhD
Phone
+1-519 664-6100
Ext
45789
Email
janelle.unger@uwo.ca
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Fereshteh Ghahremani, BSc
Phone
+1-647-622-4303
Email
fghahrem@uwo.ca
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Siobhan Schabrun, PhD
Organizational Affiliation
Western University, Canada
Official's Role
Study Director
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Parkwood Institute
City
London
State/Province
Ontario
ZIP/Postal Code
N6C 0A7
Country
Canada
Facility Contact:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Janelle Unger, PhD
Phone
+1-519-664-6100
Ext
45789
Email
janelle.unger@uwo.ca
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Fereshteh Ghahremani, BSc
Phone
+1-647-622-4303
Email
fghahrem@uwo.ca
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Siobhan Schabrun, PhD

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No
IPD Sharing Plan Description
IPD of this study will not be shared with other researchers of other studies.
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
35857624
Citation
Ding W, Hu S, Wang P, Kang H, Peng R, Dong Y, Li F. Spinal Cord Injury: The Global Incidence, Prevalence, and Disability From the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022 Nov 1;47(21):1532-1540. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004417. Epub 2022 Jun 30.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21062296
Citation
Qin W, Bauman WA, Cardozo C. Bone and muscle loss after spinal cord injury: organ interactions. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 Nov;1211:66-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05806.x.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
13740272
Citation
REED WB, PIDGEON J, BECKER SW. Patients with spinal cord injury. Clinical cutaneous studies. Arch Dermatol. 1961 Mar;83:379-85. doi: 10.1001/archderm.1961.01580090029002. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21704781
Citation
Riggins MS, Kankipati P, Oyster ML, Cooper RA, Boninger ML. The relationship between quality of life and change in mobility 1 year postinjury in individuals with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Jul;92(7):1027-33. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.02.010.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24094120
Citation
Sadowsky CL, Hammond ER, Strohl AB, Commean PK, Eby SA, Damiano DL, Wingert JR, Bae KT, McDonald JW 3rd. Lower extremity functional electrical stimulation cycling promotes physical and functional recovery in chronic spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2013 Nov;36(6):623-31. doi: 10.1179/2045772313Y.0000000101. Epub 2013 Mar 20.
Results Reference
background
Citation
BARRIA P, AGUILAR R, DS D, MORIS A, ANDRADE A, JM A. Instrumented gait analysis of stroke patients after FES-cycling therapy.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23459246
Citation
Benito J, Kumru H, Murillo N, Costa U, Medina J, Tormos JM, Pascual-Leone A, Vidal J. Motor and gait improvement in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury induced by high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2012 Spring;18(2):106-12. doi: 10.1310/sci1802-106.
Results Reference
background
Citation
Fawaz S, Kamel F, El Yasaky A, El Shishtawy H, Genedy A, Awad RM, El Nabil L. The therapeutic application of functional electrical stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation in rehabilitation of the hand function in incomplete cervical spinal cord injury. Egyptian Rheumatology and Rehabilitation. 2019 Jan;46(1):21-6.
Results Reference
background
Citation
Shariat A, Hosseini L, Najafabadi MG, Cleland JA, Shaw BS, Shaw I. Functional Electrical Stimulation and Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Neurorehabilitation in Patients Post Stroke: A Short Communication. Asian Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018 Dec 31;9(4).
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
34504284
Citation
Krogh S, Aagaard P, Jonsson AB, Figlewski K, Kasch H. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on recovery in lower limb muscle strength and gait function following spinal cord injury: a randomized controlled trial. Spinal Cord. 2022 Feb;60(2):135-141. doi: 10.1038/s41393-021-00703-8. Epub 2021 Sep 9.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
25437531
Citation
Alexeeva N, Calancie B. Efficacy of QuadroPulse rTMS for improving motor function after spinal cord injury: Three case studies. J Spinal Cord Med. 2016;39(1):50-7. doi: 10.1179/2045772314Y.0000000279. Epub 2014 Dec 1.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23322551
Citation
Kumru H, Benito J, Murillo N, Valls-Sole J, Valles M, Lopez-Blazquez R, Costa U, Tormos JM, Pascual-Leone A, Vidal J. Effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor and gait improvement in incomplete spinal cord injury patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Jun;27(5):421-9. doi: 10.1177/1545968312471901. Epub 2013 Jan 15.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27469242
Citation
Kumru H, Benito-Penalva J, Valls-Sole J, Murillo N, Tormos JM, Flores C, Vidal J. Placebo-controlled study of rTMS combined with Lokomat(R) gait training for treatment in subjects with motor incomplete spinal cord injury. Exp Brain Res. 2016 Dec;234(12):3447-3455. doi: 10.1007/s00221-016-4739-9. Epub 2016 Jul 28.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
11114775
Citation
Donaldson N, Perkins TA, Fitzwater R, Wood DE, Middleton F. FES cycling may promote recovery of leg function after incomplete spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2000 Nov;38(11):680-2. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101072.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
8090549
Citation
Sloan KE, Bremner LA, Byrne J, Day RE, Scull ER. Musculoskeletal effects of an electrical stimulation induced cycling programme in the spinal injured. Paraplegia. 1994 Jun;32(6):407-15. doi: 10.1038/sc.1994.67.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24110942
Citation
Mazzoleni S, Stampacchia G, Gerini A, Tombini T, Carrozza MC. FES-cycling training in spinal cord injured patients. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:5339-41. doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2013.6610755.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
8291966
Citation
Waters RL, Adkins RH, Yakura JS, Sie I. Motor and sensory recovery following incomplete paraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 Jan;75(1):67-72.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
30586670
Citation
Wang RY, Wang FY, Huang SF, Yang YR. High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation enhanced treadmill training effects on gait performance in individuals with chronic stroke: A double-blinded randomized controlled pilot trial. Gait Posture. 2019 Feb;68:382-387. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.12.023. Epub 2018 Dec 18.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
31227660
Citation
Shariat A, Najafabadi MG, Ansari NN, Cleland JA, Singh MAF, Memari AH, Honarpishe R, Hakakzadeh A, Ghaffari MS, Naghdi S. The effects of cycling with and without functional electrical stimulation on lower limb dysfunction in patients post-stroke: A systematic review with meta-analysis. NeuroRehabilitation. 2019;44(3):389-412. doi: 10.3233/NRE-182671.
Results Reference
background

Learn more about this trial

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Paired With FES Cycling Post SCI

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs