Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation combined with robotic-assisted body weight-supported treadmill training enhances motor score and gait recovery in incomplete spinal cord injury: a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial.
Natalia Comino-Suárez, Juan C Moreno, Álvaro Megía-García and 7 others
PMID 39885542WHAT IT FOUND
Adding transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation to robotic treadmill training improved leg strength and walking speed more than sham stimulation at one-month follow-up.
The effect appeared after the stimulation phase ended, not immediately, and the study was small.
Key findings
01The active stimulation group showed significantly greater improvement in the Lower Extremity Motor Score than the sham group at follow-up.
02At follow-up, the active group had significantly better performance than the sham group on the 10-meter walk test, Timed Up and Go test, and Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury II.
03The study was small, with 27 participants, which limits certainty and may have missed other potential effects.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was very small (27 participants), which reduces statistical power and certainty. Blinding was not fully successful for participants in the active group or the assessor in the sham group according to one statistical method (Bang's index), though overall blinding was deemed successful by another (James' index). The stimulation intensity was set based on patient tolerance rather than an objective physiological measure, which could introduce variability. Data for participants unable to complete gait tests were imputed using the worst observed value, which may have overestimated the treatment effect on walking outcomes. Motor evoked potential data were missing for many participants, making those results unreliable.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC), a non-U.S. government research council. No commercial conflicts of interest were reported in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the benefit is immediate or that it applies to all phases of recovery. The significant differences between groups only appeared at the one-month follow-up, not right after the stimulation ended. Additionally, the small sample size and issues with blinding mean this evidence is preliminary and should be interpreted with caution.