Case Report: Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation in the Chronic Spinal Cord Injury Patient.

This is a single case report with no control group, so the observed changes cannot be attributed to the intervention rather than natural variation, the passage of time, or the concurrent physical therapy. The patient received galvanic vestibular stimulation, vestibular rehabilitation exercises, neurofunctional physical therapy and a stabilising sling together, making it impossible to identify which component, if any, caused the improvement. Muscle tone, spasticity and hypertonia were assessed only before treatment, so changes in these impairments over the ten sessions are unknown. The authors state that S4 and S5 sensory levels were not tested, which weakens the claim that the lesion changed from complete to incomplete. Follow-up was limited to approximately one month, so it is unclear whether the gains in balance, transfers and self-care were maintained. Sitting posturography on a force platform is poorly described in the literature for this population, and the authors found no comparable studies to contextualise the numerical changes.

The authors declare no commercial or financial conflicts of interest. The device used was the Microestim TES from NKL, but the paper does not state whether the manufacturer funded or designed the study.

Do not conclude that galvanic vestibular stimulation caused the improvement in balance, transfers or the change from complete to incomplete injury. The patient received vestibular exercises, neurofunctional physical therapy and a stabilising sling alongside the electrical stimulation, and this single case report cannot separate the contribution of any one component.