Cited by 670Spinal Cord Injury ResearchStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics

Recovery of Over-Ground Walking after Chronic Motor Complete Spinal Cord Injury

Open access
Angeli, Claudia A., Boakye, Maxwell, Morton, Rebekah A., Vogt, Justin, Benton, Kristin, Chen, Yangshen, Ferreira, Christie K., Harkema, Susan J.·2018·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Summ a r yPersons with motor complete spinal cord injury, signifying no voluntary movement or sphincter function below the level of injury but including retention of some sensation, do not recover independent walking.We tested intense locomotor treadmill training with weight support and simultaneous spinal cord epidural stimulation in four patients 2.5 to 3.3 years after traumatic spinal injury and after failure to improve with locomotor training alone.Two patients, one with damage to the mid-cervical region and one with damage to the high-thoracic region, achieved over-ground walking (not on a treadmill) after 278 sessions of epidural stimulation and gait training over a period of 85 weeks and 81 sessions over a period of 15 weeks, respectively, and all four achieved independent standing and trunk stability.One patient had a hip fracture during training.(Funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and others; ClinicalTrials.govnumber, NCT02339233.)T here are estimated to be 1,275,000 persons with paralysis from spinal cord injury in the United States. 1 These patients indicate in surveys that walking and standing are highly desirable goals. 2 We have previously shown that epidural stimulation of the spinal cord and simultaneous intense rehabilitation may allow the restoration of some volitional movement below the level of spinal injury 3,4 and may result in the ability to stand independently.5,6 We report here recovery of independent walking over ground, not on a treadmill, in two of four patients with motor complete paralysis, with the use of a program that combines customized epidural spinal cord stimulation and intense training in standing and stepping.The study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Louisville and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.All the patients provided written informed consent.All the authors vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and the reporting of adverse events and for the adherence of the study to the protocol, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.Medtronic provided the epidural electrode arrays, neurostimulators, programming devices, and recharging units to the Kentucky Spinal Cord Injury Research Center at the University of Louisville.There was no other industry involvement, and no funds were given by Medtronic to the institution, investigators, or research participants.The delay between active intervention for the first patient (November 11, 2014) and registration of the study (January 12, 2015) is explained in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1803588

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This recovery has been documented in various independent studies, including in participants with complete sensorimotor paralysis.

    “This recovery has been documented in various independent studies, including in participants with complete sensorimotor paralysis5,6,30–34.”

    From Walking naturally after spinal cord injury using a brain–spine interface (2023) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Discussion reports that the two participants who recovered over-ground walking had partially spared sensation. The two participants with motor and sensory complete injuries did not achieve independent bilateral stepping or transition to over-ground walking. The paper therefore contradicts the claim if “this recovery” refers to walking. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The delivery of epidural electrical stimulation over the lumbar spinal cord has enabled many individuals with spinal cord injury to regain adaptive control over the activity of otherwise paralysed muscles.

    “The delivery of epidural electrical stimulation over the lumbar spinal cord has enabled many individuals with spinal cord injury to regain adaptive control over the activity of otherwise paralysed muscles.”

    From Walking naturally after spinal cord injury using a brain–spine interface (2023) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Results and Discussion (page numbers not supplied) report intention-dependent leg-muscle activity and walking with epidural stimulation in two of four participants; all four achieved some stimulation-dependent motor activity. The claim overgeneralizes this small study to “many individuals” and omits the intensive training used alongside stimulation. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Dimitrijević MR. Residual motor func- tions in spinal cord injury. Adv Neurol 1988; 47: 138-55.
  2. Grillner S. Control of locomotion in bi- peds, tetrapods, and fish. In: Handbook of physiology. Section 1. The nervous system. Vol. 2. Motor control. Bethesda, MD: Amer- ican Physiological Society, 1981: 1179-236.
  3. Shik ML, Orlovsky GN. Neurophysiol- ogy of locomotor automatism. Physiol Rev 1976; 56: 465-501.
  4. Rossignol S, Chau C, Brustein E, Bé- langer M, Barbeau H, Drew T. Locomotor capacities after complete and partial le- sions of the spinal cord. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars) 1996; 56: 449-63.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Angeli, C. A., Boakye, M., Morton, R. A., Vogt, J., Benton, K., Chen, Y., Ferreira, C. K., & Harkema, S. J.
Affiliations
University of Louisville (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2018-09-27
Volume
379
Issue
13
Pages
1244-1250
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2891480663
Cited by
670
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 82 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 99 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 18
FWCI
47.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
  • University of Louisville
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Keywords
motor complete spinal cord injury, epidural spinal cord stimulation, overground walking, walking recovery, chronic spinal cord injury, core stability, spinal cord injury rehabilitation, thoracic trauma, standing training
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Electrodes, Implanted, Epidural Space, Exercise Therapy, Humans, Locomotion, Male, Spinal Cord Injuries, Walking, Recovery of Function, Spinal Cord Stimulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review