Role of electrical stimulation for rehabilitation and regeneration after spinal cord injury: an overview.

Structural discontinuity in the spinal cord after injury results in a disruption in the impulse conduction resulting in loss of various bodily functions depending upon the level of injury. This article presents a summary of the scientific research employing electrical stimulation as a means for anatomical or functional recovery for patients suffering from spinal cord injury. Electrical stimulation in the form of functional electrical stimulation (FES) can help facilitate and improve upper/lower limb mobility along with other body functions lost due to injury e.g. respiratory, sexual, bladder or bowel functions by applying a controlled electrical stimulus to generate contractions and functional movement in the paralysed muscles. The available rehabilitative techniques based on FES technology and various Food and Drug Administration, USA approved neuroprosthetic devices that are in use are discussed. The second part of the article summarises the experimental work done in the past 2 decades to study the effects of weakly applied direct current fields in promoting regeneration of neurites towards the cathode and the new emerging technique of oscillating field stimulation which has shown to promote bidirectional regeneration in the injured nerve fibres. The present article is not intended to be an exhaustive review but rather a summary aiming to highlight these two applications of electrical stimulation and the degree of anatomical/functional recovery associated with these in the field of spinal cord injury research.

Self-reported nonmusculoskeletal responses to chiropractic intervention: a multination survey.

OBJECTIVE: To replicate a previous study of nonmusculoskeletal responses to chiropractic intervention and to establish whether such responses are influenced by the country of study, chiropractors' attitudes, and information to patients, patients' demographic profiles, and treatment regimens. METHODS: Information obtained through questionnaires by chiropractors and patients on return visit within 2 weeks of previous treatment from chiropractic practices in Canada, United States, Mexico, Hong-Kong, Japan, Australia, and South Africa. In all, 385 chiropractors collected valid data on 5607 patients. Spinal manipulation with or without additional therapy was the intervention provided by chiropractors. Outcome measures included self-reported improved nonmusculoskeletal reactions (allergy, asthma, breathing, circulation, digestion, hearing, heart function, ringing in the ears, sinus problems, urination, and others). RESULTS: The results from the previous study were largely reproduced. Positive reactions were reported by 2% to 10% of all patients and by 3% to 27% of those who reported to have such problems. Most common were improved breathing (27%), digestion (26%), and circulation (21%). Some variables were identified that somewhat influenced the outcome: patients informed that such reactions may occur (odds ratio [OR] 1.5), treatment to the upper cervical spine (OR 1.4), treatment to lower thoracic spine (OR 1.3), and female sex (OR 1.3). However, these had a very small "explanatory" value (pseudo R2 3%). CONCLUSION: A minority of patients with self-reported nonmusculoskeletal symptoms report definite improvement after chiropractic care, and very few report definite worsening. Future studies should use stringent criteria to investigate a possible treatment effect and concentrate on specific diagnostic subgroups such as digestive problems and tinnitus.