Researchers from Spain are shining new light on the connection between the neurologic damage caused by spinal cord injuries (SCI), spontaneous motor function recovery, and long-term motor deficits. Their work, “Dynamic Motor Compensations with Permanent, Focal Loss of Forelimb Force after Cervical Spinal Cord Injury, ” is available free on the Journal of Neurotrauma website at www.liebertpub.com/neu.
Spinal Cord Injuries: New Information
1 min read Premium comments
Secondary
About 70% of human traumatic SCIs are incomplete, say the researchers, but the destruction of critical nerve fibers disrupts the signals normally sent between the brain and spinal cord beyond the site of the injury, resulting in locomotor impairment and paralysis. Elisa López-Dolado, Ana Lucas-Osma, and Jorge Collazos-Castro, of the Hospital Nacional de Parapléjicos Finca La Peraleda in Toledo, Spain, simulated a C6 partial SCI in adult rats and analyzed their recovery of motor function over four months.
The authors report extensive kinetic, anatomical, and electrophysiological data that demonstrate how the animals compensate for the permanent loss of some motor function. They propose that a premotoneuronal system in the cervical spine may be involved in the production and chronic nature of limb impairment, which could have important implications for the design of future treatment methods.
“This paper is important to the spinal cord injury field because it provides a comprehensive assessment of motor performance up to four months after cervical spinal cord injury, ” says Deputy Editor of Journal of Neurotrauma W. Dalton Dietrich, III, Ph.D., in the December 3, 2013 news release. Dr. Dietrich is scientific director of The Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, and Kinetic Concepts Distinguished Chair in Neurosurgery, Professor of Neurological Surgery, Neurology and Cell Biology at University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, Lois Pope LIFE Center. “Force and kinematic data identifying progressive sensorimotor compensatory processes indicate new targets for therapeutic strategies to promote recovery and repair.”
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.