Publications by Author: Marc P Schneider

v

van der Lely S, Schmidhalter MR, Knüpfer SC, et al. Lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. BJU international. 2022;130(2):166-180. doi:10.1111/bju.15574

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the current literature on lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment (LUTESA), with regard to current perception thresholds (CPTs) and sensory evoked potentials (SEPs), and to discuss the applied methods in terms of technical aspects, confounding factors, and potential for lower urinary tract (LUT) diagnostics.

METHODS: The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medline (PubMed), Embase and Scopus were searched on 13 October 2020. Meta-analyses were performed and methodological qualities of the included studies were defined by assessing risk of bias (RoB) as well as confounding.

RESULTS: After screening 9925 articles, 80 studies (five randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 75 non-RCTs) were included, comprising a total of 3732 patients and 692 healthy subjects (HS). Of these studies, 61 investigated CPTs exclusively and 19 reported on SEPs, with or without corresponding CPTs. The recording of LUTCPTs and SEPs was shown to represent a safe and reliable assessment of LUT afferent nerve function in HS and patients. LUTESA demonstrated significant differences in LUT sensitivity between HS and neurological patients, as well as after interventions such as pelvic surgery or drug treatments. Pooled analyses showed that several stimulation variables (e.g. stimulation frequency, location) as well as patient characteristics might affect the main outcome measures of LUTESA (CPTs, SEP latencies, peak-to-peak amplitudes, responder rate). RoB and confounding was high in most studies.

CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data show that CPT and SEP recordings are valuable tools to more objectively assess LUT afferent nerve function. LUTESA complements already established diagnostics such as urodynamics, allowing a more comprehensive patient evaluation. The high RoB and confounding rate was related to inconsistency and inaccuracy in reporting rather than the technique itself. LUTESA standardization and well-designed RCTs are crucial to implement LUTESA as a clinical assessment tool.

H

Hofer AS, Scheuber MI, Sartori AM, et al. Stimulation of the cuneiform nucleus enables training and boosts recovery after spinal cord injury.. Brain : a journal of neurology. 2022;145(10):3681-3697. doi:10.1093/brain/awac184

Severe spinal cord injuries result in permanent paraparesis in spite of the frequent sparing of small portions of white matter. Spared fibre tracts are often incapable of maintaining and modulating the activity of lower spinal motor centres. Effects of rehabilitative training thus remain limited. Here, we activated spared descending brainstem fibres by electrical deep brain stimulation of the cuneiform nucleus of the mesencephalic locomotor region, the main control centre for locomotion in the brainstem, in adult female Lewis rats. We show that deep brain stimulation of the cuneiform nucleus enhances the weak remaining motor drive in highly paraparetic rats with severe, incomplete spinal cord injuries and enables high-intensity locomotor training. Stimulation of the cuneiform nucleus during rehabilitative aquatraining after subchronic (n = 8 stimulated versus n = 7 unstimulated versus n = 7 untrained rats) and chronic (n = 14 stimulated versus n = 9 unstimulated versus n = 9 untrained rats) spinal cord injury re-established substantial locomotion and improved long-term recovery of motor function. We additionally identified a safety window of stimulation parameters ensuring context-specific locomotor control in intact rats (n = 18) and illustrate the importance of timing of treatment initiation after spinal cord injury (n = 14). This study highlights stimulation of the cuneiform nucleus as a highly promising therapeutic strategy to enhance motor recovery after subchronic and chronic incomplete spinal cord injury with direct clinical applicability.