Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Nerve injuries - Guided plasticity, Introduction, B/ Which sensory co…

- - - - Rehab after nerve injuries - task based mirror therapy & touch observation - Hsu et al 2019
      - Hand function after nerve injury - Lundborg et al 2007
      - Novak et al 2013, Lancet 1981
      - Etat des lieux des pratiques Jerosh Herold et al 2011
      - Sensory rehab (review) Oud et al 2007, Xia et al 2021
        
        Australian protocol - sensory rehab Parry et al 1980
      - Relearning process (adaptation to the new cortical pattern)
        Osterman, A.L., et al., Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity. 2021. (non trouvé sur Pubm
        ed)
    - - misdirection of the regenerating axons Chemnitz et al 2013, Höke et Brushart 2010
      - reorganization of cortical representations Merzenich et al 1993 separated patches instead of one large continuous zone, usurping inputs from surrounding regions
      - nervous system reorganization folloing injury chen et al 2002 (little focus over cross modal plasticity for sensory recovery)
- - - - Vibro-acoustic signals (alternate feedback at D1) Rosén et Lundborg, 2004
    - - Relationship between S1 and M1 (sensory evoked potentials through the skin over the APB muscle can induce changes in M1) Peripheral electrical stimulation results in co-modulation of S1 and M1 excitability, possibly due to cortico-cortical projections between S1 and M1.Shabrun et al 2012
      - Chronic electrical stimulation of transected peripheral nerves preserves anatomy and function in the primary somatosensory cortex. Herrera Rincon et al 2012 (in rats) Structural preservation of deafferented cortex induced by electrical stimulation of a sensory peripheral nerve. Herrera Rincon et al 2010
      - stimulation with square pulses (protocole) through implanted intrafascicular electrodes to restore somatosensory feedback + controlateral matching test Pasluosta et al 2018
      - TENS and SEP (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and somatosensory evoked potentials - cf EEG) Mijic et al 2022
      - how to specifically target a nerve using electrodes placement ? Electrical field superposition principle Dmochowski et al 2011
      - Prepulse technique to specifically target sensory rather than momtor functions Dali et al 2016
        
        SEP (Somatosensory evoked potentials - EEG) N20 dipole shift Pleger et al 2001 + functional connectivity (imaginary coherence) Freyer et al 2012
      - Cortical response (investigated by magnetoencephalography (MEG)) after TENS stimulation of the amputed thumb Chen et al 2017
- - - - Co-activation : learning occurs in response to exposure to repetitive sensory stimulation Dinse et al 2019 Beste et Dinse 2013
        
        Tactile co-activation prevents sensory decline in ageing Dinse et al 2006
        
        repetitive daily sensory stimulation in partients with subacute stroke Kattenstroth et al 2018
        
        High-Frequency Repetitive Sensory Stimulation improves sensory loss in CRPS1 patients David et al 2015
        
        Combining motor and sensory activation : effects on somatosensory cortex Ladda et al 2014 Lissek et al 2009
        
        cf Hebbian learning ('units that fire together, wire together') Munakata et al 2004 : synchronous neural activity is generated by simultaneous tactile ‘co-stimulation’ of a large number of receptive fields
        
        Training independant sensory learning in tactile modality Pleger et al 2001, Pleger et al 2003, Godde et al 2000 (repeated stimulations of the fingertip, either cutaneously or electrically, in order to induce plasticity in the corresponding brain areas)
        
        EEG : increase in the size of the cortical representation specific to the co-activated finger + improvement in 2PD threshold Pleger et al 2001, Pleger et al 2003
        
        changes in cortical excitability : Paired-pulse suppression was reduced after co-activation (= increased excitability = LTP induction), correlated with gain in performance Höffken et al 2007
        
        PROTOCOLE : High-frequency stimulation consisted of cutaneous pulse trains applied to the tip of the right index finger with a stimulation frequency of 20 Hz. Each train consisted of 20 single pulses of 20 Hz lasting one second with an inter-train interval
        
        effet médié par les canaux NMDA (bloqués par mémantine, activés par amphétammines) Dinse et al 2003
- - - - 10 persons per group (two-tailed) and 8 persons (one-tailed) with a standard de viation of 1.2, alpha =0.05, ß=0.8 if we want to detect a 1.2 point difference
- - - - Duration : 2 weeks (10 treatments) 2 hours for 14 consecutive days, at home. All the affected fingers are trated
        
        CJP : STI-test (with a significant statistical difference ≥ 1.2) per ggroup one-tailed)
        
        alpha =0.05, ß=0.8, SD 1.5 => 15 persons per group (two-tailed) and 12 persons (one-tailed). if SD 1 (8 persons two tailed) and 6 persons (1 tailed). if SD 1.2 (10 persons two tailed and 8 persons
      - Experiment group : standard sensory rehab + co-activation device
      - Control group: standard sensory rehab + sham repeted cutaneous stim (with the device without stim)
- - - - Advanced ES paradigm
        
        influence of various spatiotemporal parameters on the perception fo the ES
- - - - age 18-50 yo
      - No prior history of peripheral nerve problems
      - No prior history of neurological disorder or prior trauma to the neurous system
    - - Severe psychiatric disorders or severe drug problems.
      - Communication problems due to severe language problems
      - Epilepsy or other neurological disorder, history of cardiac arrhythmias with hemodynamic instability, implanted medical devices and pregnancy.
- - - - Consecutive adult (18 – 70 years) patients with median and/or ulnar nerve transections.
      - Nerve injury combined with injury to tendons and vessels can be included.
    - - Patients with severe psychiatric disorders or severe drug problems.
      - Communication problems due to severe language problems
      - Patients with epilepsia or other neurological disorder, history of cardiac arythmias with hemodynamic instability, implanted medical devices and pregnancy.
    - - alpha = 0.05 and ß = 0.8 and assuming a standard deviation of 1.5 would => 15 persons per group (two-tailed) and 12 persons (one-tailed). If SD= 1 => 8 persons (two-tailed) and 6 persons (1-tailed). If SD= 1.2 => 10 persons per group (two-tailed) and 8 persons (one-tailed). Calculated using G*Power 3.1.9.7.
- - - - short bursts of vibrations will be followed with relatively long periods without stimulation. Dinse et al 2019 Beste and Dinse 2013
    - - Neural stimulator device
        
        current control mode (to eliminate any current spikes)
        
        safety
        
        Battery powered / Two isolated parts (control logic / slave logic) (no hazardous current loops)
        
        switches (physical and softare) : to shut-down the device immediately
        
        current outpout : limited to 10 mA (<< TENS - 100 mA)
        
        charge-balanced output pulses (no ion accumulation in the tissue below the electrodes)
        
        electrodes placed distally and ipsilaterally (no current can flow through the heart)
        
        can generate arbitrary waveforms (to simulate physiological activation of afferent nerve fibers)
      - protocole
        
        various temporal characteristics
        
        time difference between consecutive stimuli
        
        durations of individual pulses
        
        shape of individual pulses
        
        various spatial characteristics
        
        cf electrodes positions