← Back to all trials
Active Not Recruiting
NCT07900490
Recovery and Safety After Epidural Spinal Cord Stimulation in People With Spinal Cord Injury
Conditions: Spinal Cord Injury
Sex: All
Healthy volunteers: No
Enrollment: 6
Sponsor: Hainan University
Location: Haikou People's Hospital Haikou Hainan
Summary
Spinal cord injury can cause lasting difficulties with movement, sensation, bladder and bowel function, and daily activities. Epidural spinal cord stimulation delivers electrical pulses through implanted electrodes and may be used together with rehabilitation to support recovery.
This retrospective case series will review clinical records from six patients with spinal cord injury who previously received implanted epidural spinal cord stimulation at Haikou People's Hospital. Three of the patients are children. The study aims to describe changes in movement, sensation, standing and walking ability, daily activities, and other functions, as documented in the available records. It will also summarize complications related to implantation, the stimulation system, and stimulation during follow-up.
The research involves reviewing existing treatment and follow-up information. Participation in this retrospective study does not require a new implantation procedure or changes to the patient's treatment.
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
1. Patients with spinal cord injury who previously underwent implantation of an epidural spinal cord stimulation system.
2. Availability of sufficiently complete medical records, imaging, stimulation parameters, rehabilitation records, and follow-up assessments.
3. For adult participants, informed consent to participate in the study. For minors, consent from a legally authorized representative and assent from the participant according to their capacity to understand.
Exclusion Criteria:
1. Missing key information that prevents assessment of the main study outcomes.
2. Refusal by the participant or legally authorized representative to permit the use of relevant data for research or academic publication.
3. Data quality judged by the investigators to be insufficient, or substantial confounding circumstances that make the case unsuitable for inclusion.
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07900490). StuddyBuddy aggregates publicly available trial information.