AI CuratorAI-generated
Research summary · AI summary · not yet reviewedHuman studyNot reportedPublished in a peer-reviewed journal
Epidural Spinal Cord Stimulation in Adults with Spasticity
In a study of 247 adults with spasticity, epidural spinal cord stimulation (eSCS) led to a pooled mean decrease in spasticity of approximately 1.77 points on the Modified Ashworth Scale, with most patients showing improvement. Functional gains were reported in 35% to 75% of patients. Adverse events were rare, occurring in less than 10% of participants.
- Tags
- #MSResearch
- Most relevant to
- —
This plain-English summary was written by AI from a published abstract and may contain errors. It is not medical advice. Read the original study and talk to your MS team before making decisions about treatment.
- Human efficacy
- Not established from this source
- Mechanism
- Not reported
- Evidence strength
- Not graded
- Outcome
- Not reported
Why it matters
This study suggests that eSCS may reduce spasticity and improve function in many patients, indicating a potential avenue for management of spasticity.
What this does not prove
The study design varied, with small sample sizes and differences in outcome measures, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Larger multicenter studies are needed for more definitive conclusions.
Next milestone
No next milestone was established from the available source.
Study facts
- Study design
- Not reported
- Participants / samples
- 247 · total n = 247 patients, with 176 receiving eSCS
- Randomised
- Not reported
- Controlled
- Not reported
- Primary endpoint met
- Not reported
- Relevant MS type
- Not reported
- Publication date
- 2026-09-25
- Evidence reviewed
- Abstract only
- Regulatory approval
- Not reported
- Research areas
- Not classified
- Biological target
- Not reported
- Pathway
- Not reported
- Population
- adults (≥18 years) with spasticity of any etiology
- Size of effect
- Not reported
- Secondary endpoints
- Not reported
- MRI endpoints
- Not reported
- Biomarkers
- Not reported
- Safety
- Adverse events were infrequent (<10%), mainly including hardware migration or transient autonomic dysreflexia; no deaths or irreversible deficits were reported.
Original sources
- Primary evidenceEpidural Spinal Cord Stimulation for Spasticity: A Systematic Review. ↗DOI: 10.1016/j.neurom.2026.09.010
Supporting passages (18)
populationadults (≥18 years) with spasticity of any etiology
sample size247
sample size basistotal n = 247 patients, with 176 receiving eSCS
publication date2026-09-25
interventionepidural spinal cord stimulation (eSCS)
primary endpointspasticity reduction (eg, Modified Ashworth Scale [MAS])
follow upmedian follow-up was 12 months (range, 0.25-24 months)
findingseSCS electrode placement ranged from cervical (C3-C7) to thoracic (Th10-L1) and upper lumbar levels.
findingsMean age was 35.6 years, and median follow-up was 12 months (range, 0.25-24 months).
findingsMAS reductions were consistent (pooled mean decrease of approximately 1.77 points; SCI subgroup mean -2.41 points from 3.65 to 1.24).
findingsSpasticity improved in most patients (reported response rates ranging from 62% to approximately 80%), with functional gains (eg, ambulation, activities of daily living, and independence) demonstrated in approximately 35% to 75% of patients.
findingsSpasticity improved in most patients (reported response rates ranging from 62% to approximately 80%), with functional gains (eg, ambulation, activities of daily living, and independence) demonstrated in approximately 35% to 75% of patients.
findingsAdverse events were infrequent (<10%), mainly including hardware migration or transient autonomic dysreflexia; no deaths or irreversible deficits were reported.
limitationsHeterogeneity in study design, stimulation and implantation parameters, outcome measures, and follow-up timing, along with small sample sizes, limits generalizability.
limitationsTherefore, larger, multicenter trials with standardized reporting are needed to optimize paradigms and to define the mechanistic role in spasticity management.
safety signalsAdverse events were infrequent (<10%), mainly including hardware migration or transient autonomic dysreflexia; no deaths or irreversible deficits were reported.
peer reviewedPublication types: Journal Article; Review
subjectsRecords (n = 2872 after duplicates were removed) were screened independently by two reviewers; nine studies (total n = 247 patients, with 176 receiving eSCS) met the inclusion criteria.
AI assessment, not yet reviewed by a person · version 1 · Community votes are separate from evidence review.