Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 89, Issue 10 , Pages 1907-1912 , October 2008

Poststroke Upper-Limb Rehabilitation Using 5 to 7 Inserted Microstimulators: Implant Procedure, Safety, and Efficacy for Restoration of Function

  • Ross Davis, MD

      Affiliations

    • Alfred Mann Foundation, Santa Clarita, CA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Ross Davis, MD, Alfred Mann Foundation, 25134 Rye Canyon Loop, Santa Clarita, CA 91355
  • ,
  • Owen Sparrow, FRCS

      Affiliations

    • Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, Southampton, UK
  • ,
  • Gregoire Cosendai, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Alfred Mann Foundation, Santa Clarita, CA
  • ,
  • Jane H. Burridge, PhD

      Affiliations

    • University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
  • ,
  • Christian Wulff, MD

      Affiliations

    • Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, Southampton, UK
  • ,
  • Ruth Turk, MSc

      Affiliations

    • University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
  • ,
  • Joseph Schulman, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Alfred Mann Foundation, Santa Clarita, CA

  • Image Result

    (A) A radiofrequency (RF) microstimulator (RFM) with an eyelet. (B) An intraoperative insertion tool. (C) A pulse shape showing the stimulation (Stim) phases. (D) The clinician fitting unit. The 2 att

    (A) A radiofrequency (RF) microstimulator (RFM) with an eyelet. (B) An intraoperative insertion tool. (C) A pulse shape showing the stimulation (Stim) phases. (D) The clinician fitting unit. The 2 attached coil cuffs for the arm and forearm were connected to the control unit. Note that the scale is 5cm. Abbreviation: Ampl, amplitude.

  • Image Result
    The microstimulator insertion and ejection tools are shown. (A) The ejection tool is withdrawn from the sheath. (B) The microstimulator has a suture threaded and tied to its eyelet. (C) The microstimu

    The microstimulator insertion and ejection tools are shown. (A) The ejection tool is withdrawn from the sheath. (B) The microstimulator has a suture threaded and tied to its eyelet. (C) The microstimulator is inserted into the sheath. (D) The ejector tool (plus syringe with antibiotic-saline solution) is inserted into the sheath pushing the microstimulator down the sheath. (E) The ejector tool approaches the mark line on its proximal part (arrow). (F) The ejection tool, having reached this line, has exposed the tip of the radiofrequency microstimulator to the tissue, which is ready for stimulation after the saline-antibiotic mixture is instilled.

  • Image Result
    Radiographs of the (A) upper arm and (B) forearm of subject 2 showing the distributions of radiofrequency microstimulators at their target sites. Note the 2 microstimulators for the posterior inteross

    Radiographs of the (A) upper arm and (B) forearm of subject 2 showing the distributions of radiofrequency microstimulators at their target sites. Note the 2 microstimulators for the posterior interosseous nerve and branches. (C) The upper limb in subject 2 with external cuff coils attached to the control unit (C2, C5). (C1) Resting. (C2-C6) Five evoked limb movements from different specific nerve motor point stimulation (as indicated). Abbreviations: ECU, extensor carpi ulnaris; ECR, extensor carpi radialis; PIN, posterior interosseous.

  • Image Result
    (A) The threshold of each of the 41 radiofrequency microstimulators was measured at 6 time events: immediate postimplantation (day 0), postimplant check (day 4), and phase 1 (days 15−90). The mean and

    (A) The threshold of each of the 41 radiofrequency microstimulators was measured at 6 time events: immediate postimplantation (day 0), postimplant check (day 4), and phase 1 (days 15−90). The mean and SD values were plotted. The left hand values are the microstimulator thresholds converted to their charge density. (B) Five sheep were implanted with 13 microstimulators near the hypoglossal nerves. At postmortem, the distance (in millimeters) from each microstimulator's cathode to the nerve was measured and plotted against their final threshold stimulation values.

 Supported by the Alfred Mann Foundation.

 A commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article may confer a financial benefit on the author or one or more of the authors. The Alfred Mann Foundation is developing the radiofrequency microstimulator used in this study. Davis and Cosendai are consultants to the Alfred Mann Foundation; Schulman was an employee of the Alfred Mann Foundation while the study was conducted.

 Published online August 29, 2008 at www.archives-pmr.org.

PII: S0003-9993(08)00432-2

doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.05.010

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 89, Issue 10 , Pages 1907-1912 , October 2008