ABSTRACT STUDY DESIGN An international multi-centred, double-blinded, randomised sham-controlled trial (eWALK). OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of 12 weeks of transcutaneous spinal

stimulation (TSS) combined with locomotor training on walking ability in people with spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING Dedicated SCI research centres in Australia, Spain, USA and Scotland.

METHODS Fifty community-dwelling individuals with chronic SCI will be recruited. Participants will be eligible if they have bilateral motor levels between T1 and T11, a reproducible lower

limb muscle contraction in at least one muscle group, and a Walking Index for SCI II (WISCI II) between 1 and 6. Eligible participants will be randomised to one of two groups, either the

with sham stimulation. The primary outcome will be walking ability with stimulation using the WISCI II. Secondary outcomes will record sensation, strength, spasticity, bowel function and

quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION ANZCTR.org.au identifier ACTRN12620001241921 You have full access to this article via your institution. Download PDF SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY

OTHERS FEASIBILITY OF TRANSCUTANEOUS SPINAL DIRECT CURRENT STIMULATION COMBINED WITH LOCOMOTOR TRAINING AFTER SPINAL CORD INJURY Article 27 April 2022 FEASIBILITY AND UTILITY OF

TRANSCUTANEOUS SPINAL CORD STIMULATION COMBINED WITH WALKING-BASED THERAPY FOR PEOPLE WITH MOTOR INCOMPLETE SPINAL CORD INJURY Article Open access 25 November 2020 EFFECTS OF REPETITIVE

TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION ON RECOVERY IN LOWER LIMB MUSCLE STRENGTH AND GAIT FUNCTION FOLLOWING SPINAL CORD INJURY: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL Article Open access 09 September

2021 INTRODUCTION Regaining the ability to walk is a priority for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) [1,2,3] and has been the focus of many studies and clinical trials [4]. While it

is currently not possible to restore voluntary control of muscles paralysed after SCI, recent developments have been made [5]. A series of case studies indicate that epidural spinal

stimulation in individuals with SCI can elicit step-like, rhythmic movement of the legs [6,7,8,9,10]. Similar effects have also been observed when transcutaneous spinal stimulation (TSS) is

applied in able-bodied individuals [11, 12], with evidence that TSS activates the same neural structures as epidural stimulation [13]. Moreover, there is preliminary evidence that TSS may be

able to restore voluntary movement and the ability to stand and walk in some individuals with SCI [14]. These improvements occur almost immediately in some individuals while others

experience progressive improvements after combined spinal stimulation and intensive physiotherapy. Moreover, there is preliminary evidence that TSS can reduce spasticity [15], which may also

contribute to improved walking ability. Following a complete SCI, the human lumbosacral neural circuitry can generate rhythmic motor output in response to cutaneous and proprioceptive

afferent signals elicited during assisted standing and walking [14, 16,17,18,19,20]. Similarly, TSS can elicit rhythmic muscle activity [10, 21,22,23]. Importantly, these therapeutic

modalities—assisted standing and walking and TSS—interact with one another [24] and their combined application can elicit greater rhythmic muscle activity than either intervention alone [14,

22]. Moreover, repeated exposure to this combined therapy can augment, and potentially restore, connections with supraspinal centres and postural reflex pathways [25,26,27,28,29]. As a

population on the rise [30,31,32], individuals with incomplete SCI are the most likely to regain the ability to walk [33], and TSS could help with recovery by increasing the excitability of

lumbar spinal locomotor circuits that have partially lost their descending motor drive [34,35,36,37]. Preliminary evidence indicates that TSS can improve gait kinematics and locomotor muscle

activity in these individuals. Despite positive preliminary results, a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials has prevented translation into standard clinical practice [38].

Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of 12 weeks of TSS combined with locomotor training on walking ability in people with chronic SCI. For this

purpose, we will compare a group randomised to receive TSS plus locomotor training to a group randomised to receive sham TSS plus locomotor training. This study will also investigate the

effect of this training on sensory [39, 40], motor [41, 42] and bowel function [40, 43, see also 44], spasticity and quality of life. We hypothesise that TSS with locomotor training will

improve walking ability in people with chronic SCI who have some residual lower limb motor function. We also hypothesise TSS with locomotor training will improve spasticity, sensation, lower

limb muscle strength, bowel function and quality of life. Furthermore, we hypothesise that improvements will only be apparent in the presence of TSS. METHODS TRIAL DESIGN AND STUDY SETTING

An international multi-centred, double-blinded, randomised sham-controlled trial will be conducted in four SCI research centres located in Australia, USA, Scotland and Spain. Fifty

participants with chronic SCI will be randomised to one of two groups, namely the stimulation group or the sham group. Participants allocated to the stimulation group will receive TSS while

they complete 30-min of locomotor training, three times per week for 12 weeks (Fig. 1A). Participants allocated to the sham group will receive the same locomotor training, but with sham TSS.

PARTICIPANTS RECRUITMENT AND CONSENT PROCEDURE Participants will be recruited via existing research databases, health professionals and advertisements on websites of SCI organisations.

Potential participants will be given a copy of the participant information sheet to read. They will be informed that their participation in the trial is voluntary and will not affect their

current or future relationships with the study centres. Participants will be encouraged to ask questions and to discuss the trial with family and friends before providing consent. Once

essential trial information has been provided, participants will be asked to give informed consent to participate in the trial by signing the Consent Form in the presence of a witness. These

forms will be dated and retained by the investigator at the site where consent is gained, and a copy will be provided to the participant. The present plan is for the Sydney site, the

sponsor, to recruit approximately 20 participants and each of the other sites to recruit approximately 10 participants each. INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA Table 1 presents the inclusion

and exclusion criteria. ALLOCATION AND RANDOMISATION OF PARTICIPANTS A secure blocked random-allocation schedule will be computer-generated prior to the start of the trial by an independent

person not directly involved in the trial. The random-allocation schedule will consist of 50 three-digit codes: 25 assigned to the stimulation group and 25 assigned to the sham group. The

three-digit codes will be used to program the stimulator control unit. The random-allocation schedule will be uploaded to REDCap [45] to allow each study site to randomise participants. To

maintain blinded allocation, the REDCap random-allocation schedule will display the three-digit code, not the participant’s allocated group. Once a participant is deemed eligible for the

trial, a baseline assessment will be completed, and a study investigator will randomise the participant within REDCap. The participant will be considered enroled in the trial at this time.

INTERVENTION The physiotherapists and assistants delivering the locomotor training will be blinded to treatment allocation. Participants will be instructed to not discuss their perceived

group allocation with the physiotherapists and assistants. The success of blinding will be recorded at week 12. When enroled in the trial, participants will be asked to stop any formal

physiotherapy programs aimed at improving walking. LOCOMOTOR TRAINING Both groups will receive three 30-min locomotor training sessions per week for 12 weeks while receiving their allocated

stimulation. Previous studies examining transcutaneous stimulation and locomotor training protocols vary considerably in frequency and duration [46], particularly stimulation studies in

which there are currently no RCTs [14, 41]. Many of the studies examining the effects of traditional locomotor training programs, typically train participants between 8 to 12 weeks, 3–5

times a week, with improvements in walking ability seen in people with incomplete SCI [47,48,49]. Potential participants were contacted to gauge whether it would be feasible for them to

train three times a week for 12 weeks, this was deemed feasible by all the people contacted. Therefore, three 30-min locomotor training sessions per week for 12 weeks was chosen as an

adequate training dose, taking into account current established training protocols and the time commitment from participants. While overground and treadmill locomotor training have

equivalent therapeutic benefits in people with incomplete SCI [24,25,26], body-weight support treadmill training is more ergonomic for therapists and allows for greater dosage (i.e., steps)

when training individuals with impaired mobility (i.e., WISCI II scores from 1 to 6). Thus, participants will undergo five treadmill and one overground training session(s) per fortnight, for

a total of 30 treadmill and six overground training sessions over 12 weeks. Training will be delivered by an experienced neurological physiotherapist and up to two trained assistants as

required. Training will be provided to all therapists at each site on how to perform the locomotor training to ensure consistency across sites. Participants will be allowed standing, and if

needed, seated rests during the training sessions. Stimulation will be stopped during seated rests, and this time will not count towards the 30 minutes training target. In contrast,

stimulation will continue during standing rests, and this time will count towards the 30 minutes training target. For each session, a maximum of 60 minutes will be allotted to complete the

30 minutes of training. While it is possible a participant may not complete 30 minutes of training in a session if they require regular or prolonged seated rests, unpublished pilot work

conducted in the Sydney centre found that participants rarely require seated breaks. Standing breaks, when taken, typically lasted no longer than 1–2 minutes. Thus, we expect most

participants to complete the 30 minutes of training each session, with > 85% of each session spent walking. Manual assistance of the lower limbs based on established locomotor protocols

will be provided as required to improve walking patterns [50]. The amount of body-weight support required will be assessed on the first training day. Excessive knee flexion during the stance

phase (i.e., > 40°) or toe dragging during the swing phase will indicate body-weight support needs to be increased [51]. Body-weight support will be reviewed regularly with the aim of

walking with the greatest amount of weight-bearing that does not cause excessive knee flexion or toe drag. There will be no limit to the amount of body-weight support that can be provided,

as long as the participant’s heels contact the treadmill. The speed of the treadmill will be monitored and adjusted by the physiotherapist throughout the 12-week training period, with the

aim of walking at the fastest comfortable speed that allows for a correct walking pattern. For overground training sessions, participants will be encouraged to walk at a comfortable pace. To

ensure safety and optimise the participant’s walking pattern during overground training sessions, orthoses, gait aides, parallel bars and safety harnesses will be used as required. The

details of each training session will be recorded by the therapist in a training diary. Changes in pain and spasticity will be recorded on a weekly basis. Changes in medication use will also

be recorded. TRANSCUTANEOUS SPINAL STIMULATION Transcutaneous spinal stimulation will be applied with the anode (5 × 10 cm) placed over the lower abdomen and the cathode (5 × 10 cm) placed

over the lower back, both centred on the midline of the body [14, 22, 52, 53]. For the anode, the long edge of the electrode will be oriented horizontally. For the cathode, the long edge of

the electrode will be oriented vertically. The preferred cathode placement will be with the top edge of the electrode in-line with the L1–L2 vertebral interspace. However, this location may

be adjusted rostrally—to a maximum of the T11–T12 vertebral interspace—to accommodate for implanted metal hardware or the rare case that posterior root-muscle (PRM) reflexes cannot be

elicited at the preferred electrode site. Prior to the first day of locomotor training plus stimulation (or sham), all participants will be briefed on what to expect with regards to the

stimulation. Specifically, participants will be informed that each person experiences the stimulation differently based on their level of sensation and tolerance. Participants will also be

informed that the sensations associated with the stimulation may change over time, including over the course of a single training session. Studies, case studies and case series investigating

the use of TSS to improve walking ability in people with SCI have used a variety of stimulation parameters [54]. The choice of parameters for the current trial was based on a study

conducted in Sydney on 10 able-bodied participants and 10 participants with SCI [55] and a survey of the literature. The basic stimulation waveform will be 1 ms in duration, filled with a

biphasic 10 KHz carrier frequency. This type of waveform has been used in several previous studies [12, 14, 39, 56,57,58]. While some studies have reported similar effects without the high

carrier frequency [22, 41, 53], there is evidence that, with the high-frequency component present, motor responses can be elicited with less discomfort [59, 60], although a recent paper does

not support this claim [61]. Moreover, there is recent evidence that, for the upper limb, including a carrier frequency may have suppressive effects on cortical excitability in people with

SCI, which is associated with greater functional performance [62]. However, the mechanisms underlying improvements remain unclear for conventional or carrier frequency stimulation delivered

either epidurally or transcutaneously. Posterior root-muscle reflexes are evoked muscle responses elicited by electrically stimulating the posterior nerve roots of the spinal cord. To assess

these, biphasic rectangular single pulses of 1 ms with a 10 kHz carrier frequency will be delivered using a Digitimer Biphasic Constant Current multi-modal stimulator (DS8R, Digitimer Ltd,

UK), driven by a custom stimulator control unit. The minimal stimulation intensity required to induce PRM reflexes in the bilateral vastus medialis muscles (> 50 μV peak-to-peak amplitude

above the background muscle activity in 5 of 10 consecutive trials in relaxed muscles) will be used to set TSS intensity during locomotor training [62]. Reflexes will be assessed in

standing with approximately 90% body-weight support to enable some afferent feedback from the feet, yet no EMG activity from the vastus medialis muscles. The location of the EMG electrodes

will be standardised across sites. This threshold will be assessed prior to randomisation and then re-assessed every 2 weeks, during the training period. Transcutaneous spinal stimulation

during locomotor training will consist of the same biphasic rectangular pulse delivered tonically at 20 Hz. TSS intensity will be 100% of the threshold intensity determined during the most

recent PRM reflex testing session. Various TSS intensities have been used in studies involving people with SCI, with beneficial effects reported for intensities that are below the motor

threshold, above the motor threshold and at the motor threshold [41, 62, 63]. We chose to not use a subthreshold target intensity as this is difficult to set reliably, especially across

therapists, sessions and study sites [64]. Moreover, a study conducted in Sydney confirmed that the proposed TSS intensity elicits only very small lower limb muscle contractions, which do

not interfere with the locomotor training or with walking by the participants. Various stimulation frequencies have been used to induce locomotor-like muscle activity using TSS, ranging from

5–50 Hz [14, 22, 40, 65]. The amplitude of step-like movements increase as the stimulation frequency increases from 5 Hz to 40 Hz [12]. More recently, lower stimulation frequencies (< 15

 Hz) are preferred to assist standing, while higher frequencies are used to assist walking [14, 66]. As discomfort due to the stimulation is a concern in people with incomplete SCI, and

unpublished pilot experiments found 20 Hz stimulation to be more comfortable than 30 Hz stimulation, the present trial will use 20 Hz TSS (1 ms pulses filled with biphasic 10 kHz carrier

frequency). SHAM TRANSCUTANEOUS SPINAL STIMULATION The experimental set-up, procedures and training will be identical for participants randomised to the Sham group, except that they will

receive sham TSS during the training sessions. Several studies have successfully employed sham electrical stimulation [67,68,69,70,71]. We have adapted these procedures to reduce further the

possibility that participants will be able to determine (or guess) their group allocation. To reduce the risk of unblinding, details related to the novel sham TSS will only be reported with

the results of the trial. Providing details of the sham stimulation prior to the trial being completed would make them accessible to blinded research staff and participants, which could

lead to real or perceived unblinding and thus bias trial results. However, if others wish to replicate or adapt our sham stimulation prior to completion of the current trial, details will be

shared upon reasonable request. OUTCOMES Primary and secondary outcomes were selected based on a review of previous studies investigating the benefits of locomotor training or TSS in people

with SCI, as well as consultation with spinal physicians and the SCI community. Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline prior to randomisation and 12 weeks after randomisation.

Participants will also be followed up four weeks after the intervention period (week 16, Fig. 1B). Assessments will be completed by an independent blinded assessor at each trial site; the

assessor will be a physiotherapist with experience treating individuals with SCI and assessing the outcome measures. Participants will be instructed to not discuss their perceived group

allocation with the blinded assessor. At weeks 12 and 16, some outcomes are assessed twice, once with the stimulation or sham and once without the stimulation or sham. The order of these

assessments (i.e., with and without stimulation or sham) will be randomised across participants. Adverse events directly related to the treatment will also be monitored throughout the trial.

PRIMARY OUTCOME WALKING ABILITY WITH STIMULATION OR SHAM AT 12 WEEKS Walking ability will be measured using the WISCI II. This is a functional capacity scale that rank orders the ability of

a person with a SCI to walk 10 m from most to least impaired [72]. An a priori between-group difference of 2 points on the WISCI II has been determined as the minimally worthwhile treatment

effect [73]. SECONDARY OUTCOMES WALKING ABILITY WITH STIMULATION OR SHAM AT 16 WEEKS Measured using the WISCI II. The following outcomes will be measured at 12 and 16 weeks. WALKING ABILITY

WITHOUT STIMULATION OR SHAM Measured using the WISCI II. LOWER EXTREMITY MOTOR FUNCTION WITH AND WITHOUT STIMULATION OR SHAM Strength will be assessed with the lower extremity motor score

from the ISNCSCI [74]. Scores will be summed, with a total possible score of 50. SPASTICITY WITH AND WITHOUT STIMULATION OR SHAM Lower limb spasticity will be assessed with the Modified

Ashworth Scale [75]. Three lower limb muscle groups will be tested: knee extensors, ankle plantar flexors and hip flexors. Scores will be summed, with a total possible score of 30. SENSATION

WITHOUT STIMULATION OR SHAM Sensation will be assessed with the sensory score of the ISNCSCI [74]. Scores will be summed, with a total possible score of 224. BOWEL FUNCTION Bowel function

will be assessed with the Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction score, a validated 10-item questionnaire commonly used to assess bowel symptoms in individuals with SCI [76]. This questionnaire

produces a severity score out of 47. QUALITY OF LIFE Quality of life will be assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimension—5 Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) [77], a standardised preference-based

measure of health status. The EQ-5D-5L comprises a short questionnaire and a visual analogue scale out of 100. PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS The participant characteristics that will be

collected are age, gender, time since injury, height, weight, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS), and neurological, motor and sensory levels according to

ISNCSCI. STATISTICAL METHODS SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATION A sample size of 50 (25 stimulation, 25 sham) gives a > 90% probability of detecting a between-group difference of 2 points on the

primary outcome: WISCI II [73]. This assumes an alpha of 0.05, a SD of 2 points [48, 78] and a dropout rate of 15%. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS We will use an intention-to-treat analysis to draw

accurate and unbiased conclusions regarding the effectiveness of our intervention. That is, participants will be analysed according to the group to which they were allocated, regardless of

compliance with the intervention. Statistical analysis will be conducted blind to treatment allocation. All outcomes will be analysed with multi-level (i.e., mixed) models. Ordinal measures

with few scale values (e.g., Modified Ashworth Scale) will be dichotomised and assessed using multi-level logistic regression. Continuous measures and ordinal measures with many scale values

(e.g., WISCI II) will be assessed using multi-level linear regression. In both cases, the _participant_ will be a random factor with a random intercept. We will verify the appropriateness

of statistical procedures (diagnostic tests) a priori and, if required, identify appropriate alternative analyses (e.g., data transformations, robust analyses) and the order in which they

should be applied. We are primarily interested in whether improvements in outcomes differ between the stimulation group and the sham group following 12 weeks of locomotor training. Baseline

values will be included as a covariate. All contrasts will be performed and results reported as mean effects and 95% confidence intervals. ADVERSE EVENTS AND SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS All

adverse events will be recorded and reported to the Principal Investigator. The Principal Investigator will be responsible for reporting any serious adverse events to the Ethics Committee as

soon as possible. All adverse events and serious adverse events will be followed until they have abated, or until a stable situation has been reached. Depending on the event, additional

tests or medical procedures may be required, as well as a review by a general medical practitioner or SCI physician. DATA COLLECTION, MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY All information collected

for this trial will be de-identified and kept confidential and secure. All files containing participants’ personal details will remain at the trial site where they were collected. Moreover,

case report forms will only contain participant ID codes and upon trial completion will be stored at the trial site where they were collected. Electronically transcribed data will be stored

on the secure REDCap system managed by Neuroscience Research Australia. Access to data will only be granted to the Principal Investigators and other research staff directly involved in the

study. Individual names of the participants will not be considered in data analysis and participants will not be identified in published data. Any data stored for future analysis will be

de-identified. Trial monitoring will be undertaken by the Principal Investigator, an independent Data Monitoring and Safety Committee (DMSC), and an independent trial monitor. Best practice

conduct of the trial will be ensured through frequent monitoring by the responsible Investigators and the clinical trial monitor, with the purpose of facilitating the work and fulfilling the

objectives of the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION All design features important for minimising bias will be adhered to and the trial has been registered with the Australian and New Zealand

Clinical Trials register (ACTRN12620001241921). This study has been approved by the ethics committee in Sydney and is currently awaiting approval in the other sites. We certify that all

applicable institutional and governmental regulations concerning the ethical use of human volunteers will be followed during the course of this research. Results will be presented at

national and international conferences or similar. Participant’s individual results will be available on request from the Principal Investigator at their site. DATA AVAILABILITY Data sharing

is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed. For the main trial, full de-identified data used to generate all results will be made available with the

publication. REFERENCES * Brown-Triolo DL, Roach MJ, Nelson K, Triolo RJ. Consumer perspectives on mobility: implications for neuroprosthesis design. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002;39:659–70.

PubMed  Google Scholar  * Anderson KD. Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord-injured population. J Neurotrauma. 2004;21:1371–83. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Simpson LA,

Eng JJ, Hsieh JT. Wolfe, the Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Evidence Research Team DL. The health and life priorities of individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J

Neurotrauma. 2012;29:1548–55. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Mehrholz J, Harvey LA, Thomas S, Elsner B. Is body-weight-supported treadmill training or robotic-assisted gait training

superior to overground gait training and other forms of physiotherapy in people with spinal cord injury? A systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2017;55:722–9. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  * Willyard C. How a revolutionary technique got people with spinal-cord injuries back on their feet. Nature. 2019;572:20–6. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Angeli CA, Boakye M,

Morton RA, Vogt J, Benton K, Chen Y, et al. Recovery of over-ground walking after chronic motor complete spinal cord injury. N. Engl J Med. 2018;379:1244–50. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

  * Harkema S, Gerasimenko Y, Hodes J, Burdick J, Angeli C, Chen Y, et al. Effect of epidural stimulation of the lumbosacral spinal cord on voluntary movement, standing, and assisted

stepping after motor complete paraplegia: a case study. Lancet 2011;377:1938–47. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Alam M, Ling YT, Wong AY, Zhong H, Edgerton VR, Zheng YP.

Reversing 21 years of chronic paralysis via non‐invasive spinal cord neuromodulation: a case study. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2020;7:829–38. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  *

Gill ML, Grahn PJ, Calvert JS, Linde MB, Lavrov IA, Strommen JA, et al. Neuromodulation of lumbosacral spinal networks enables independent stepping after complete paraplegia. Nat Med.

2018;24:1677–82. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Dimitrijevic MR, Gerasimenko Y, Pinter MM. Evidence for a spinal central pattern generator in humans a. Ann N. Y Acad Sci.

1998;860:360–76. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Gerasimenko Y, Gorodnichev R, Puhov A, Moshonkina T, Savochin A, Selionov V, et al. Initiation and modulation of locomotor circuitry

output with multisite transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the spinal cord in noninjured humans. J Neurophysiol. 2015;113:834–42. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Gorodnichev R,

Pivovarova E, Puhov A, Moiseev S, Savochin A, Moshonkina T, et al. Transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the spinal cord: a noninvasive tool for the activation of stepping pattern

generators in humans. Hum Physiol. 2012;38:158–67. Article  Google Scholar  * Hofstoetter US, Freundl B, Binder H, Minassian K. Common neural structures activated by epidural and

transcutaneous lumbar spinal cord stimulation: elicitation of posterior root-muscle reflexes. PloS One. 2018;13:e0192013. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Sayenko DG,

Rath M, Ferguson AR, Burdick JW, Havton LA, Edgerton VR, et al. Self-assisted standing enabled by non-invasive spinal stimulation after spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36:1435–50.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Hofstoetter US, McKay WB, Tansey KE, Mayr W, Kern H, Minassian K. Modification of spasticity by transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in

individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2014;37:202–11. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Harkema SJ, Hurley SL, Patel UK, Requejo PS, Dobkin BH,

Edgerton VR. Human lumbosacral spinal cord interprets loading during stepping. J Neurophysiol. 1997;77:797–811. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Dietz V, Colombo G, Jensen L,

Baumgartner L. Locomotor capacity of spinal cord in paraplegic patients. Ann Neurol. 1995;37:574–82. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Dietz V, Müller R, Colombo G. Locomotor activity

in spinal man: significance of afferent input from joint and load receptors. Brain. 2002;125:2626–34. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Beres-Jones JA, Harkema SJ. The human spinal cord

interprets velocity-dependent afferent input during stepping. Brain. 2004;127:2232–46. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Dobkin B, Harkema S, Requejo P, Edgerton V. Modulation of

locomotor-like EMG activity in subjects with complete and incomplete spinal cord injury. J Neurol Rehabil. 1995;9:183–90. CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Minassian K, Jilge B, Rattay F,

Pinter M, Binder H, Gerstenbrand F, et al. Stepping-like movements in humans with complete spinal cord injury induced by epidural stimulation of the lumbar cord: electromyographic study of

compound muscle action potentials. Spinal Cord. 2004;42:401–16. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Minassian K, Hofstoetter US, Danner SM, Mayr W, Bruce JA, McKay WB, et al. Spinal

rhythm generation by step-induced feedback and transcutaneous posterior root stimulation in complete spinal cord–injured individuals. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30:233–43. Article 

PubMed  Google Scholar  * Minassian K, Persy I, Rattay F, Pinter MM, Kern H, Dimitrijevic MR. Human lumbar cord circuitries can be activated by extrinsic tonic input to generate

locomotor-like activity. Hum Mov Sci. 2007;26:275–95. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Dy CJ, Gerasimenko YP, Edgerton VR, Dyhre-Poulsen P, Courtine G, Harkema SJ. Phase-dependent

modulation of percutaneously elicited multisegmental muscle responses after spinal cord injury. J Neurophysiol. 2010;103:2808–20. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Courtine

G, Gerasimenko Y, Van Den Brand R, Yew A, Musienko P, Zhong H, et al. Transformation of nonfunctional spinal circuits into functional states after the loss of brain input. Nat Neurosci.

2009;12:1333–42. Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Musienko PE, Zelenin PV, Orlovsky GN, Deliagina TG. Facilitation of postural limb reflexes with epidural stimulation

in spinal rabbits. J Neurophysiol. 2010;103:1080–92. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Field-Fote EC. Exciting recovery: augmenting practice with stimulation to optimize outcomes after

spinal cord injury. Prog Brain Res. 2015;218:103–26. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Harkema SJ. Plasticity of interneuronal networks of the functionally isolated human spinal cord.

Brain Res Rev. 2008;57:255–64. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Colombo G, Wirz M, Dietz V. Effect of locomotor training related to clinical and electrophysiological examinations in spinal

cord injured humans. Ann N. Y Acad Sci. 1998;860:536–8. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * O’Connor PJ. Forecasting of spinal cord injury annual case numbers in Australia. Arch Phys

Med Rehabil. 2005;86:48–51. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * DeVivo MJ. Epidemiology of traumatic spinal cord injury: trends and future implications. Spinal Cord. 2012;50:365–72. Article 

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * McCaughey EJ, Purcell M, McLean AN, Fraser MH, Bewick A, Borotkanics RJ, et al. Changing demographics of spinal cord injury over a 20-year period: a

longitudinal population-based study in Scotland. Spinal Cord. 2016;54:270–6. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Yang JF, Musselman KE. Training to achieve over ground walking after

spinal cord injury: a review of who, what, when, and how. J Spinal Cord Med. 2012;35:293–304. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Eisdorfer JT, Smit RD, Keefe KM, Lemay MA,

Smith GM, Spence AJ. Epidural electrical stimulation: a review of plasticity mechanisms that are hypothesized to underlie enhanced recovery from spinal cord injury with stimulation. Front

Mol Neurosci. 2020;13:163. Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Milosevic M, Masugi Y, Sasaki A, Sayenko DG, Nakazawa K. On the reflex mechanisms of cervical

transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in human subjects. J Neurophysiol. 2019;121:1672–9. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Mayr W, Krenn M, Dimitrijevic MR. Epidural and transcutaneous

spinal electrical stimulation for restoration of movement after incomplete and complete spinal cord injury. Curr Opin Neurol. 2016;29:721–6. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Ievins A,

Moritz CT. Therapeutic stimulation for restoration of function after spinal cord injury. Physiology. 2017;32:391–8. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Calvert JS, Grahn PJ, Zhao KD, Lee KH.

Emergence of epidural electrical stimulation to facilitate sensorimotor network functionality after spinal cord injury. Neuromodulation. 2019;22:244–52. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Gad PN, Kreydin E, Zhong H, Latack K, Edgerton VR. Non-invasive neuromodulation of spinal cord restores lower urinary tract function after paralysis. Front Neurosci. 2018;12:432. Article 

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Martin R. Impact of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation on walking function in a patient with incomplete spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med

Rehabil. 2018;99:e49–e50. Article  Google Scholar  * Al’joboori Y, Massey SJ, Knight SL. Donaldson NdN, Duffell LD. The effects of adding transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) to

sit-to-stand training in people with spinal cord injury: A pilot study. J Clin Med. 2020;9:2765. Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Darrow D, Balser D, Netoff TI, Krassioukov A,

Phillips A, Parr A, et al. Epidural spinal cord stimulation facilitates immediate restoration of dormant motor and autonomic supraspinal pathways after chronic neurologically complete spinal

cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36:2325–36. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Walter M, Lee AH, Kavanagh A, Phillips AA, Krassioukov AV. Epidural spinal cord stimulation

acutely modulates lower urinary tract and bowel function following spinal cord injury: a case report. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1816. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Bourbeau

D, Creasey G, French J, Grill WM, Howley S, Krassioukov A, et al. A roadmap for advancing neurostimulation approaches for bladder and bowel function after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord.

2020;58:1227–32. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and

workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inf. 2009;42:377–81. Article  Google Scholar  * Harkema SJ, Hillyer J, Schmidt-Read M, Ardolino E, Sisto

SA, Behrman AL. Locomotor training: as a treatment of spinal cord injury and in the progression of neurologic rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:1588–97. Article  PubMed  Google

Scholar  * Sandler EB, Roach KE, Field-Fote EC. Dose-response outcomes associated with different forms of locomotor training in persons with chronic motor-incomplete spinal cord injury. J

Neurotrauma. 2017;34:1903–8. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Yang JF, Musselman KE, Livingstone D, Brunton K, Hendricks G, Hill D, et al. Repetitive mass practice or

focused precise practice for retraining walking after incomplete spinal cord injury? A pilot randomized clinical trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28:314–24. Article  PubMed  Google

Scholar  * Mehrholz J, Kugler J, Pohl M. Locomotor training for walking after spinal cord injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD006676. * Harkema SJ, Behrman AL, Barbeau H. Locomotor

training: principles and practice: Oxford University Press, USA; 2011. * Field-Fote EC, Lindley SD, Sherman AL. Locomotor training approaches for individuals with spinal cord injury: a

preliminary report of walking-related outcomes. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2005;29:127–37. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Rath M, Vette AH, Ramasubramaniam S, Li K, Burdick J, Edgerton VR, et

al. Trunk stability enabled by noninvasive spinal electrical stimulation after spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2018;35:2540–53. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  *

Hofstoetter US, Krenn M, Danner SM, Hofer C, Kern H, McKay WB, et al. Augmentation of voluntary locomotor activity by transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in motor-incomplete spinal

cord-injured individuals. Artif Organs. 2015;39:E176–86. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Megia Garcia A, Serrano-Muñoz D, Taylor J, Avendaño-Coy J, Gómez-Soriano J. Transcutaneous spinal

cord stimulation and motor rehabilitation in spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2020;34:3–12. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Elphick T, Bye E, Héroux M,

Boswell-Ruys C, Butler J, McCaughey E, et al. Spinal stimulation and standing study (SSASSY). Australian and New Zealand Spinal Cord Society Annual Scientific Meeting; Virtual 2021. *

Parhizi B, Barss TS, Mushahwar VK. Simultaneous cervical and lumbar spinal cord stimulation induces facilitation of both spinal and corticospinal circuitry in humans. Front Neurosci.

2021;15:379. Article  Google Scholar  * Inanici F, Samejima S, Gad P, Edgerton VR, Hofstetter CP, Moritz CT. Transcutaneous electrical spinal stimulation promotes long-term recovery of upper

extremity function in chronic tetraplegia. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2018;26:1272–8. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Gerasimenko YP, Lu DC, Modaber M, Zdunowski

S, Gad P, Sayenko DG, et al. Noninvasive reactivation of motor descending control after paralysis. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32:1968–80. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Ward

AR. Electrical stimulation using kilohertz-frequency alternating current. Phys Ther. 2009;89:181–90. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Ward AR, Lucas-Toumbourou S. Lowering of sensory,

motor, and pain-tolerance thresholds with burst duration using kilohertz-frequency alternating current electric stimulation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:1036–41. Article  PubMed  Google

Scholar  * Manson GA, Calvert JS, Ling J, Tychhon B, Ali A, Sayenko DG. The relationship between maximum tolerance and motor activation during transcutaneous spinal stimulation is unaffected

by the carrier frequency or vibration. Physiol Rep. 2020;8:e14397. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Benavides FD, Jo HJ, Lundell H, Edgerton VR, Gerasimenko Y, Perez MA.

Cortical and subcortical effects of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in humans with tetraplegia. J Neurosci Res. 2020;40:2633–43. CAS  Google Scholar  * Freyvert Y, Yong NA, Morikawa

E, Zdunowski S, Sarino ME, Gerasimenko Y, et al. Engaging cervical spinal circuitry with non-invasive spinal stimulation and buspirone to restore hand function in chronic motor complete

patients. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1–10. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Serrano-Muñoz D, Gómez-Soriano J, Bravo-Esteban E, Vázquez-Fariñas M, Taylor J, Avendaño-Coy J. Intensity matters:

therapist-dependent dose of spinal transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0189734. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Gerasimenko Y, Gorodnichev

R, Moshonkina T, Sayenko D, Gad P, Edgerton VR. Transcutaneous electrical spinal-cord stimulation in humans. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;58:225–31. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google

Scholar  * Jilge B, Minassian K, Rattay F, Pinter MM, Gerstenbrand F, Binder H, et al. Initiating extension of the lower limbs in subjects with complete spinal cord injury by epidural lumbar

cord stimulation. Exp Brain Res. 2004;154:308–26. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Awosika OO, Sandrini M, Volochayev R, Thompson RM, Fishman N, Wu T, et al. Transcutaneous spinal

direct current stimulation improves locomotor learning in healthy humans. Brain Stimul. 2019;12:628–34. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Murray LM, Tahayori B, Knikou M.

Transspinal direct current stimulation produces persistent plasticity in human motor pathways. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1–11. Article  Google Scholar  * Serrano-Muñoz D, Gómez-Soriano J,

Bravo-Esteban E, Ávila-Martín G, Galán-Arriero I, Taylor J, et al. Soleus H-reflex modulation following transcutaneous high-and low-frequency spinal stimulation in healthy volunteers. J

Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2019;46:1–7. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Deyo RA, Walsh NE, Martin DC, Schoenfeld LS, Ramamurthy S. A controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve

stimulation (TENS) and exercise for chronic low back pain. N. Engl J Med. 1990;322:1627–34. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Petrie J, Hazleman B. Credibility of placebo

transcutaneous nerve stimulation and acupuncture. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 1985;3:151–3. CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Dittuno P, Dittuno J Jr. Walking index for spinal cord injury (WISCI II):

scale revision. Spinal Cord. 2001;39:654–6. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Musselman KE. Clinical significance testing in rehabilitation research: what, why, and how? Phys Ther Rev.

2007;12:287–96. Article  Google Scholar  * Kirshblum SC, Waring W, Biering-Sorensen F, Burns SP, Johansen M, Schmidt-Read M, et al. Reference for the 2011 revision of the international

standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2011;34:547–54. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Baunsgaard C, Nissen U, Christensen K,

Biering-Sørensen F. Modified Ashworth scale and spasm frequency score in spinal cord injury: reliability and correlation. Spinal Cord. 2016;54:702–8. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Krogh K, Christensen P, Sabroe S, Laurberg S. Neurogenic bowel dysfunction score. Spinal cord. 2006;44:625–31. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe

PF, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17:445–53. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Van

Hedel H, Wirz M, Curt A. Improving walking assessment in subjects with an incomplete spinal cord injury: responsiveness. Spinal Cord. 2006;44:352–6. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Black

J, Baharestani MM, Cuddigan J, Dorner B, Edsberg L, Langemo D, et al. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel’s updated pressure ulcer staging system. Adv Ski Wound Care. 2007;20:269–74.

Article  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge Professor Rob Herbert/Peter Humburg for their statistical advice; SpinalCure Australia, Spinal Cord

Injuries Australia and Paraquad for their assistance with an advertisement for this trial; and the support of local Spinal Cord Injury Units at each site. FUNDING Funding for this study has

been received from SpinalCure Australia and Catwalk NZ. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Neuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia Elizabeth A. Bye, Martin

E. Héroux, Claire L. Boswell-Ruys, Bonsan B. Lee, Euan J. McCaughey, Jane E. Butler & Simon C. Gandevia * Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia Elizabeth A. Bye, 

Claire L. Boswell-Ruys & Bonsan B. Lee * School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia Elizabeth A. Bye, Martin E. Héroux, Claire L.

Boswell-Ruys, Bonsan B. Lee, Euan J. McCaughey, Jane E. Butler & Simon C. Gandevia * Shirley Ryan Ability Lab, Northwestern University, Hine VA Hospital, Chicago, USA Monica A. Perez *

Queen Elizabeth National Spinal Injuries Unit, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, G51 4TF, Scotland Mariel Purcell & Euan J. McCaughey * Hospital Nacional de Parapléjicos,

SESCAM, Toledo, 45071, Spain Julian Taylor * Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3TD, UK Julian Taylor Authors * Elizabeth A. Bye View author publications You can

also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Martin E. Héroux View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Claire L. Boswell-Ruys View

author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Monica A. Perez View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar *

Mariel Purcell View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Julian Taylor View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed 

Google Scholar * Bonsan B. Lee View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Euan J. McCaughey View author publications You can also search for this

author inPubMed Google Scholar * Jane E. Butler View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Simon C. Gandevia View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS Conceptualisation: EAB, MEH, CLB, BBL, EJM, JEB, and SCG; Methodology: EAB, MEH, CLB, BBL, EJM, JEB, and SCG; Writing—original

draft: EAB, EJM, and MEH; Writing—review & editing: All authors; Project administration: EAB, MEH, CLB, BBL, EJM, JEB, and SCG; Funding acquisition: SG and JB. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR

Correspondence to Simon C. Gandevia. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains

neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Bye, E.A.,

Héroux, M.E., Boswell-Ruys, C.L. _et al._ Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation combined with locomotor training to improve walking ability in people with chronic spinal cord injury: study

protocol for an international multi-centred double-blinded randomised sham-controlled trial (eWALK). _Spinal Cord_ 60, 491–497 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-021-00734-1 Download

citation * Received: 15 June 2021 * Revised: 23 November 2021 * Accepted: 25 November 2021 * Published: 11 January 2022 * Issue Date: June 2022 * DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-021-00734-1 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not

currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative