Functional Electrical Stimulation in Tetraplegic Patients to Restore Hand Function
Abstract
The purpose of this collective review is to describe a new form of functional electrical stimulation called neuroprosthesis. This unique technology has been devised to produce lateral pinch and palmar grasp in persons with C5 and C6 motor level spinal cord injuries. This neuroprosthesis includes external as well as implanted components. First, a receiver is surgically implanted into the patient's chest above a pectoralis major muscle. The receiver stimulator is then connected to 8 surgically implanted epimysial or intramuscular electrodes. Restoration of upper extremity function can greatly improve the lives of people affected with tetraplegia. When contralateral shoulder movements trigger an external transmitting coil, it sends a radio wave impulse to the stimulator inducing contraction of the muscles. Many tetraplegics are regaining hand function using implanted functional electrical stimulation. One major limitation is that the key muscles to be stimulated may have lower motor neuron damage, but this obstacle has been successfully overcome using surgical modifications of the biomechanics of the hand.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The morphology and structure of the iridium oxide on the LCP substrate electrodes were markedly different compared to the cauliflower morphology reported by Cogan et al [1] and Slavcheva et al [2].
“The morphology and structure of the iridium oxide on the LCP substrate electrodes were markedly different compared to the cauliflower morphology reported by Cogan et al [1]and Slavcheva et al [2].”
From Flexible Nerve Stimulation Electrode With Iridium Oxide Sputtered on Liquid Crystal Polymer (2009) · cites this paper as [2]
The peaks indicated an active Ir(IV) + e− ⇋ Ir(III) charge transfer mechanism.
“However, these peaks indicated an active Ir(IV) + e− ⇋ Ir(III) charge transfer mechanism.”
From Flexible Nerve Stimulation Electrode With Iridium Oxide Sputtered on Liquid Crystal Polymer (2009) · cites this paper as [2]
Similar multiple peaks had been reported by Cogan et al. [1] and Slavcheva et al. [2].
“Similar multiple peaks had been reported by Cogan et al. [1] and Slavcheva et al. [2].”
From Flexible Nerve Stimulation Electrode With Iridium Oxide Sputtered on Liquid Crystal Polymer (2009) · cites this paper as [2]
Impedance testing of the sputtered iridium oxide films also revealed Bode plots with slightly higher impedances compared the sputtered iridium oxide films reported by Cogan et al. [1] and Slavcheva et al [2], but lower compared to electrodeposited and activated iridium oxide films [3].
“Impedance testing of the sputtered iridium oxide films also revealed Bode plots with slightly higher impedances compared the sputtered iridium oxide films reported by Cogan et al. [1] and Slavcheva et al [2], but lower compared to electrodeposited and activated iridium oxide films [3].”
From Flexible Nerve Stimulation Electrode With Iridium Oxide Sputtered on Liquid Crystal Polymer (2009) · cites this paper as [2]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brain–machine interfaces: past, present and future
Lebedev, M. A., & Nicolelis, M. A. L. (2006) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2006.07.004 · Cited by 1,875 · see citing works
Flexible Nerve Stimulation Electrode With Iridium Oxide Sputtered on Liquid Crystal Polymer
Wang, K., Liu, C.-C., & Durand, D. M. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2008.926691 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
- Authors
- Edlich, R., Degnan, G. G., & Wind, T. C.
- Affiliations
- Legacy Emanuel Medical Center (US)
- University of Virginia Health System (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants
- Publisher
- Begell House
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 14
- ISSN
- 1050-6934 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2069796463
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
- Keywords
- functional electrical stimulation, neural prostheses, tetraplegia, spinal cord injury, hand function recovery, pectoralis major, intramuscular electrodes, radio transmission, upper limb function
- MeSH terms
- Activities of Daily Living, Clinical Trials as Topic, Electrodes, Implanted, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Female, Hand, Humans, Male, Prognosis, Quadriplegia, Spinal Cord Injuries, Transducers, Range of Motion, Articular, Treatment Outcome, Muscle, Skeletal, Hand Strength, Prostheses and Implants, Recovery of Function
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
