ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Frequency-dependent and capacitive tissue electrical properties in spinal cord stimulation models.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Models of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) simulate the electric fields (E-fields) generated in targeted tissues, which in turn can predict physiological and then behavioral outcomes. Notwithstanding increasing sophistication and use in optimizing therapy, SCS models typically calculate E-fields using the quasi-static approximation (QSA). QSA, as implemented in neuromodulation models, neglects the frequency dispersion of tissue conductivity, as well as propagation, capacitive, and inductive effects on the E-field. The reliability of QSA specifically for SCS has not been considered in detail, especially for higher-frequency SCS. Methods: We implemented a frequency-dependent finite element method (FEM) and solved a high-resolution RADO-SCS model with voltage-controlled (VC) and current-controlled (CC) stimulation to assess the impact of frequency-dependent conductivity (dispersion) and permittivity of spinal tissues on E-fields generated at three different spinal column locations (epidural space, spinal cord, and root) for frequencies spanning from 1 Hz to 10 MHz. Results were compared with predictions of QSA method, with varied conductivity values of purely resistive tissues. We further assessed the impact of frequency-dependent and capacitive tissue properties on spinal heating and distortion of the E-field waveform. Results: Tissue-specific electric properties around the energized leads and mode of stimulation-control impacted the magnitude of E-fields. In the spinal cord, the VC-SCS E-field generated with the frequency-dependent and capacitive properties was comparable to the QSA with 2X epidural fat conductivity, whereas the CC-SCS generated E-field was minimally impacted by frequency-dependent and capacitive properties up to 10 kHz. Spinal cord heating predicted by frequency-dependent and capacitive tissue properties was comparable to the QSA conditions with VC-SCS, whereas with CC-SCS, there was no impact of the frequency-dependent and capacitive tissue properties in spinal cord heating. E-field waveform distortion in the spinal cord, with CC-SCS at 1 kHz-specific electrical properties, was significant when fat capacitance (permittivity) was increased by 10X, whereas with VC-SCS, there was no effect of tissue capacitance. Conclusion: Regardless of the mode of SCS, QSA was still valid in predicting SCS-induced E-field and heating at the spinal tissues- across
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.