applied

sciences
Review
Advanced Equipment Development and Clinical Application in
Neurorehabilitation for Spinal Cord Injury: Historical
Perspectives and Future Directions
Yuji Kasukawa 1, *, Yoichi Shimada 2 , Daisuke Kudo 1 , Kimio Saito 1 , Ryota Kimura 1 , Satoaki Chida 3 ,
Kazutoshi Hatakeyama 3 and Naohisa Miyakoshi 1

1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo,
Akita 010-8543, Japan; [email protected] (D.K.); [email protected] (K.S.);
[email protected] (R.K.); [email protected] (N.M.)
2 Independent Administrative Institution, Akita Prefectural Development and Disability Organization,
1-1-2 Minamigaoka, Akita 010-1409, Japan; [email protected]
3 Division of Rehabilitation Medicine, Akita University General Hospital, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita 010-8543, Japan;
[email protected] (S.C.); [email protected] (K.H.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +81-18-884-6148

Abstract: Partial to complete paralysis following spinal cord injury (SCI) causes deterioration in
health and has severe effects on the ability to perform activities of daily living. Following the discovery
of neural plasticity, neurorehabilitation therapies have emerged that aim to reconstruct the motor
circuit of the damaged spinal cord. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) has been incorporated
into devices that reconstruct purposeful motions in the upper and lower limbs, the most recent of
which do not require percutaneous electrode placement surgery and thus enable early rehabilitation
Citation: Kasukawa, Y.; Shimada, Y.; after injury. FES-based devices have shown promising results for improving upper limb movement,
Kudo, D.; Saito, K.; Kimura, R.; including gripping and finger function, and for lower limb function such as the ability to stand
Chida, S.; Hatakeyama, K.; and walk. FES has also been employed in hybrid cycling and rowing to increase total body fitness.
Miyakoshi, N. Advanced Equipment Training using rehabilitation robots is advantageous in terms of consistency of quality and quantity
Development and Clinical of movements and is particularly applicable to walking training. Initiation of motor reconstruction
Application in Neurorehabilitation at the early stage following SCI is likely to advance rapidly in the future, with the combined use of
for Spinal Cord Injury: Historical
technologies such as regenerative medicine, brain machine interfaces, and rehabilitation robots with
Perspectives and Future Directions.
FES showing great promise.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4532. https://
doi.org/10.3390/app12094532
Keywords: spinal cord injury; neural plasticity; functional electrical stimulation; rowing; cycling;
Academic Editor: Shigeru Obayashi rehabilitation robot

Received: 6 March 2022

Accepted: 27 April 2022
Published: 29 April 2022
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Spinal cord injury (SCI) causes quadriplegia or paraplegia depending on the height
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
of the injured spinal cord, and ranges from complete paralysis to incomplete paralysis
published maps and institutional affil-
depending on the degree and severity of the injury. SCI restricts activities of daily living
iations.
(ADL), and severe quadriplegia makes it impossible to perform almost all ADL, requiring
a great deal of care and support. The incidence and causes of SCI vary according to
geographical region, social background, and culture [1,2]. Its incidence has been reported
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
as 3.6 per million in Canada [3] and 195.4 per million in Ireland [4]. The most common
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. causes of SCI have been reported as traffic accidents (67%) in West Africa, falls (60%) in
This article is an open access article South Asia, violence or self-harm (43%) in South Africa, and occupational accidents (23%)
distributed under the terms and in Western Europe [1].
conditions of the Creative Commons In recent years, the number of SCIs caused by falls of the elderly has increased in devel-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// oped countries due to the aging of the population [5]. The latest national epidemiological
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ survey of Japan, in 2018, which is the most aged country in the world, revealed that the pro-
4.0/). portion of elderly people is increasing, with an incidence of 49 per million and an average

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4532. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12094532 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4532 2 of 11

age of 66.5 years with a peak in those in their 70s [6]. In Japan, the most common severity of
SCI in 2018 was Frankel grade D (46.3%), and fall was the most common cause (38.6%) [6].
In addition, the rate of cervical SCI increased from 75.0% in a national epidemiological
survey conducted about 30 years ago to 88.1% in 2018 [6]. When elderly people are injured,
the disability becomes severe due to complications and/or comorbidities, even in mild
cases. It has been reported that the physical function and ADL of older patients with SCI do
not improve significantly [7]. People with SCI often spend their life in a wheelchair as the
paralysis becomes more severe, and suffer numerous problems such as decreased systemic
tolerability and complications of metabolic syndrome. The high morbidity and mortality
rates in persons with long-term SCI stem from cardiometabolic causes, which are likely to
be associated with major changes in body composition [8]. In a recent report, one-month
mortality risk was significantly higher at older than 75 years compared to younger than
55 years in the patients with traumatic SCI [9].
Therefore, it is very important to improve the function of people with SCI even in
elderly people. Although rehabilitation treatment is performed, mainly by physical therapy
and occupational therapy, it has been difficult to restore the function of an impaired spinal
cord. These conventional rehabilitation treatments also limit the recovery of injured spinal
cord function because of the previous thinking that nerves do not regenerate. However,
since the discovery of neural plasticity [10], the frequency and task-specificity of reha-
bilitation treatment and neuroplasticity have been considered very important factors for
effective rehabilitation treatment [11]. In recent years, neurorehabilitation treatment has
been attracting attention as a means to overcome the limits of the past and as a more effec-
tive rehabilitation treatment. Neurorehabilitation is a new treatment method that attempts
to reconstruct the motor circuit of the damaged spinal cord, and is expected to be more
effective than the natural recovery of the cord. Neurorehabilitation for SCI employs various
devices, including functional electrical stimulation (FES) [12,13], rehabilitation robots [14],
and brain-computer interfaces (BCI) [15,16].
In addition, the realization of spinal cord regenerative medicine has been promoted
worldwide [17,18]. In Japan, intravenous administration of human autologous bone
marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells was performed in 13 subacute SCI patients,
which resulted in improved neurological function in 12 patients [19]. In this way, new treat-
ment methods such as stem cell transplantation have been aiming to restore neurological
function, which should be used in combination with rehabilitation treatment (especially
neurorehabilitation) to achieve the important therapeutic goal of enabling SCI patients to
acquire independent ADL [20].
Here, we review the history of the clinical applications of the advanced devices of FES
and robot rehabilitation, discuss the results of our research on neurorehabilitation for SCI,
and describe the future prospects for these technologies.
The content of this paper is presented as follows:
1. FES for SCI
2. FES for upper limb paralysis
2.2. FES for lower limb paralysis
2.3. FES rowing and cycling
3. Robotic rehabilitation with FES for SCI
4. Future directions of FES
5. Conclusion

2. FES for SCI

FES is a treatment method that uses electrical stimulation to contract each paralyzed
muscle and reconstruct purposeful movements for upper and lower limb motor functions
impaired by central nervous system injuries such as stroke or SCI. Although paralysis occurs
in SCI due to damage to the upper motor neurons, normal electrical excitement remains
in the lower motor neurons and their controlling muscles. Thus, electrical stimulation is
 2. FES for SCI 
FES is a treatment method that uses electrical stimulation to contract each paralyzed 
muscle and reconstruct purposeful movements for upper and lower limb motor functions 
impaired  by  central  nervous  system  injuries  such  as  stroke  or  SCI.  Although  paralysis 
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4532 occurs in SCI due to damage to the upper motor neurons, normal electrical excitement  3 of 11
remains  in  the  lower  motor  neurons  and  their  controlling  muscles.  Thus,  electrical 
stimulation is used in place of excitatory impulses from the upper motor neurons, which 
can be applied directly to the lower motor neurons to contract paralytic muscles (Figure 
used in place of excitatory impulses from the upper motor neurons, which can be applied
1). 
directly to the lower motor neurons to contract paralytic muscles (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the principle of functional electrical stimulation (FES). Instead of
upper motor neuron damaged by spinal cord injury, muscles contract and reconstruct   function
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the principle of functional electrical stimulation (FES). Instead of 
through lower motor neurons that are not damaged by controlled electrical stimulation.
upper motor neuron damaged by spinal cord injury, muscles contract and reconstruct function 
In 1961, Liberson et al. reported the first use of FES, in which ankle dorsiflexion was
through lower motor neurons that are not damaged by controlled electrical stimulation. 
controlled according to the gait cycle by stimulating the common peroneal nerve with a
In 1961, Liberson et al. reported the first use of FES, in which ankle dorsiflexion was 
surface electrode in a patient with varus equinus due to stroke [21]. FES was first applied for
SCI in 1963 by Long et al. [22], who stimulated the extensor digitorum muscle of a patient
controlled according to the gait cycle by stimulating the common peroneal nerve with a 
with cervical SCI to open the hand, in combination with a finger hinge splint to reconstruct
surface electrode in a patient with varus equinus due to stroke [21]. FES was first applied 
ADL [22]. Subsequent studies have reported the application of FES in programmed motion
for SCI in 1963 by Long et al. [22], who stimulated the extensor digitorum muscle of a 
stimuli to the paralyzed limb via multiple stimulus electrodes to reconstruct purposeful
patient with cervical SCI to open the hand, in combination with a finger hinge splint to 
motions in the
reconstruct  upper
ADL  limbs
[22].  for activities
Subsequent  such have 
studies  as writing, eating,
reported  the and drinking; of 
application  andFES 
in the
in 
lower limbs formotion 
programmed  walking and standing
stimuli  [23]. Following
to  the  paralyzed  limb these studies, randomized
via  multiple  controlled
stimulus  electrodes  to 
trials were performed to investigate the effectiveness of FES training on the independence
reconstruct purposeful motions in the upper limbs for activities such as writing, eating, 
or function of SCI patients. Popovic et al. performed a randomized controlled trial to
examine the efficacy of 40 h of FES therapy with conventional occupational therapy (COT)
compared with COT alone [24]. The FES therapy significantly reduced disability and
improved voluntary grasping in the subjects with tetraplegia. Kapadia et al. reported that
16 weeks of thrice-weekly FES-assisted walking program compared to a non-FES exercise
program in chronic incomplete traumatic SCI patients [25]. The recent systematic review
and meta-analysis have indicated that FES although significantly increased upper extremity
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4532 4 of 11

independence, there was no obvious difference in overall upper extremity function, lower
extremity independence, and life quality of individuals with SCI [26].

2.1. FES for Upper Limb Paralysis

Following the first report of FES for upper limb paralysis in quadriplegia due to
cervical SCI [20], Peckham et al. developed the FES-based system, comprising an 8-channel
fully implanted electrode, a stimulator, and an external controller, and tested the system in
practical use [27]. In Japan, Handa et al. developed a percutaneous implantable electrode
FES system that achieved excellent control of quadriplegic upper limbs [28]. Since the
1990s, our group has been working on the reconstruction of the finger gripping function of
quadriplegic upper limbs using this system, which has shown success in the reconstruction
of practical movements such as eating, drinking, and writing [29].
However, as these systems require percutaneous implantable electrode placement
surgery, it is difficult to start treatment early after injury or onset. Accordingly, a new surface
electrode type FES device has been developed that enables the initiation of treatment from
an early stage after SCI without the need for percutaneous implantable electrode placement
surgery [30].
The NESS H200® Wireless system (Bioventus LLC, Durham, NC, USA) for the upper
limbs is designed specifically to reconstruct finger function in paralyzed upper limbs, and
consists of an orthotic component that houses a stimulation device, an internal surface
electrode that attaches to the upper limb, and a control unit with a built-in FES program. The
stimulation conditions can be set and transferred to the control unit by wireless operation.
This device is particularly indicated for reconstruction of function in quadriplegia due to
cervical SCI with residual functional levels of C5 or C6. Alon et al. validated its safety
and efficacy in 5 cases of C5 paralysis and 2 cases of C6 paralysis more than 3 years
after SCI [30], and reported improved upper limb function and ADL according to the
Fugl-Meyer Assessment [30]. We examined the therapeutic effect of NESS H200® from an
average of 6 days after paralysis in 23 cases of incomplete limb paralysis due to cervical
SCI. The average treatment period was 60 days, and upper limb movement was assessed
by the Japanese Orthopedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Treatment Criteria (JOA
Score). Functional items (scored out of 4 points) were significantly improved from 1.7 ± 0.5
(mean ± standard deviation [SD]) points at the start to 2.9 ± 0.9 (mean ± SD) points at
the end of treatment [31]. In addition, two randomized controlled trials that compared
therapy with FES alone or in combination with conventional therapy reported that FES
improved voluntary grasping [24,32,33]. A systematic review concluded that FES alone
or in combination with conventional therapy improved the function of the upper limbs in
patients with SCI [33].

2.2. FES for Lower Limb Paralysis

In upper limbs with quadriplegia, finger function by FES is emphasized. In the
reconstruction of the function of paraplegic lower limbs; however, it is important to obtain
muscular strength against gravity. Based on previous studies, it is possible to reconstruct
standing and walking functions by FES for paraplegic lower limbs. However, in complete
paraplegia, it is possible to walk indoors using assistive equipment such as a walker, but it
is not yet practical to do so outdoors because of the risk of falling. In the case of incomplete
paraplegia, practical walking indoors and outdoors is possible depending on the case.
Andrews et al. demonstrated the effectiveness of FES using surface electrodes to
reconstruct lower-limb function using surface electrodes in patients with paraplegia [34],
and Kraji et al. succeeded in controlling gait in completely paraplegic patients using surface
electrodes [35,36]. Klose et al. developed a 6-channel surface electrode-type lower limb FES
system termed the Parastep 1 Ambulation system, and reported a mean continuous walking
distance of 334 m and a maximum of 1707 m in 16 patients with complete paraplegia [37].
Marsolais et al. developed the VA-CWRU (Cleveland Veterans Administration Medical
Center and Case Western Reserve University) FES System, which controls movements
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4532 5 of 11

involved in standing, walking, and sitting using an extracorporeal stimulator with a 48-
channel percutaneous implantable electrode. This system could reconstruct walking on flat
ground as well as also stair climbing in paraplegics [38].
In the 1990s, our group developed an FES stimulator (Akita Stimulator I, Akita,
Japan) using 18-channel percutaneous implantable electrodes, and began reconstruction of
paraplegic standing and walking. We then developed the 32-channel Akita Stimulator II.
This device can also apply high-frequency therapeutic electrical stimulation (TES) function
for standing motion and walking swing. In addition, the standing and walking function
was reconstructed by hybrid FES using short- and long-leg orthotics [39].
Similar to that in use for the upper limbs, an orthotic-type FES device was developed
for rehabilitation treatment of the lower limbs from an early stage after injury. The NESS
L300TM is indicated for gait disturbance due to foot drop following an upper motor neuron
disease or injury including SCI. It comprises a functional stimulation (FS) cuff with an RF
Stim Unit that is attached to the proximal part of the lower leg for stimulation, a control
unit that sets the stimulation mode, and an Intelli-sense gait sensorTM that is attached to
the foot. Smith et al. reported a case of paraparesis in which NESS L300TM was used on
both sides and enabled independent walking [40]. In addition, NESS L300TM Plus, which
can be stimulated simultaneously with the thigh, can control the knee joint in addition to
the ankle joint [41], and is expected to expand the indications for cases of SCI.

2.3. FES Rowing and Cycling

Hettinga et al. reported the benefits of fitness exercise for preventing obesity, heart
disease, and diabetes in people with SCI, who have a 3–5 times higher prevalence of diabetes
and a 60% greater incidence of heart disease compared with healthy people [42]. Therefore,
fitness exercise to prevent the deterioration of tolerability is an important approach in
the rehabilitation of paraplegics. Most conventional fitness exercises for paraplegics are
generally performed using the remaining voluntary function of the upper limbs. However,
exercising only the upper limbs cannot prevent the progression of muscular atrophy and
improve circulatory disorders in paralyzed muscles of the lower limbs. Therefore, FES has
been developed in combination with such as rowing and cycling equipment to promote
whole-body exercise.

2.3.1. FES Rowing

Laskin et al. reported the combination of rowing with FES as a hybrid exercise for
people with SCI in 1993 [43]. The hybrid FES rowing system itself was developed by
Wheeler and Andrews and co-workers, who reported that using the RowStim II system
significantly increased rowing distance, peak oxygen consumption, and peak oxygen pulse
in people with SCI [44,45]. The hybrid system was developed to enable participation in a
major international rowing event in 2004 [46].
Our group also developed an FES rowing machine for preventing lower limb muscle
atrophy and improving overall fitness for paraplegic patients after SCI [47]. Using this
machine, the upper limbs perform voluntary movements whereas the paralyzed lower
limbs perform rowing movements via FES, which are controlled by a switch attached to
the handle. In paraplegic patients, FES stimulation can be performed in smooth synchro-
nization with the rowing motion under an appropriate load [47] (Figure 2). The rowing
motion exercises both the upper and lower limbs, as a whole-body exercise; in contrast,
cycling exercises only the lower limbs. The FES-rowing exercise was significantly more
effective at increasing peak oxygen consumption during exercise compared with arm-only
exercise [44,48,49]. A recent systematic review found that the FES rowing system was a vi-
able exercise system for individuals with SCI that can improve cardiovascular performance
and reduce bone density loss [50].
 limbs perform rowing movements via FES, which are controlled by a switch attached to
the handle. In paraplegic patients, FES stimulation can be performed in smooth synchro-
nization with the rowing motion under an appropriate load [47] (Figure 2). The rowing
motion exercises both the upper and lower limbs, as a whole-body exercise; in contrast,
cycling exercises only the lower limbs. The FES-rowing exercise was significantly more
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4532 effective at increasing peak oxygen consumption during exercise compared with arm- 6 of 11
only exercise [44,48,49]. A recent systematic review found that the FES rowing system was
a viable exercise system for individuals with SCI that can improve cardiovascular perfor-
mance and reduce bone density loss [50].

Figure 2. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) rowing machine. A backrest is fixed on the seat
Figure Functional
2. head).
(white arrow electrical
A switch on stimulation
the handle bar (FES)
(white dotted arrow) rowing
is installed machine.
to control the FES A backrest is fixed on the seat
(white arrows) timing by the patients themselves.
(white arrow head). A switch on the handle bar (white dotted arrow) is installed to control the FES
2.3.2. FES
(white Cycling timing by the patients themselves.
arrows)
Among the various FES training methods, FES cycling is the most commonly availa-
ble andFES
2.3.2. has been studied extensively [51]. Numerous studies since the 1980s have been
Cycling
performed regarding FES cycling after SCI. A recent systematic review of health and fit-
Among
ness-related the ofvarious
outcomes FES
FES cycling training
exercise after SCImethods,
demonstratedFES cycling
that FES is the most commonly available
cycling im-
proves lower-body muscle health and increases power output and aerobic fitness [52].
and has been studied extensively [51]. Numerous studies
FES cycling is also effective in suppressing spasticity [53] and improves measures of bone
since the 1980s have been
performed regarding
health such as bone FES cycling
mineral density after SCI.
and bone metabolic A recent
markers systematic
[52]. In contrast to FES review of health and fitness-
rowing, FES cycling has the advantage that it can be performed in home-based environ-
related outcomes of FES cycling exercise after SCI demonstrated that FES cycling improves
ments [54].
lower-body
Our group hasmuscle healtha new
also developed andFESincreases power
cycling system output
that attaches to aand aerobic fitness [52]. FES cycling
standard
iswheelchair.
also It consists of a front-wheel-drive unit that attaches to the wheelchair and an
effective in suppressing spasticity [53] and improves
FES control unit that enables cycling movements in those with lower-limb paralysis. FES
measures of bone health such
as bone mineral
stimulation densitybyand
output is performed bone that
a controller metabolic
coordinatesmarkers [52].
the contraction In contrast to FES rowing, FES
of the
quadricepshas
cycling femoris
theand hamstring with
advantage the it
that paralyzed
can bemuscles of the lower
performed inlimbs from
home-based environments [54].
the crank angle during cycling (Figure 3). We are currently verifying the effect of the sys-
Our group has also developed a new FES cycling
tem on lower limb muscle and bone health in patients with paraplegia due to SCI. system that attaches to a standard
wheelchair. It consists of a front-wheel-drive unit that attaches to the wheelchair and an
FES control unit that enables cycling movements in those with lower-limb paralysis. FES
stimulation output is performed by a controller that coordinates the contraction of the
quadriceps femoris and hamstring with the paralyzed muscles of the lower limbs from the
crank angle during cycling (Figure 3). We are currently verifying the effect of the system on
lower limb muscle and bone health in patients with paraplegia
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 12
due to SCI.

Figure 3. A new functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling system. The FES cycling system con-
Figure
sists of a 3. A new
front-wheel functional
drive electrical
unit (thick white arrow) thatstimulation (FES)
can be attached to cycling
a standard system. The FES cycling system
wheelchair
and an FES control part (thin white arrows) that enables cycling operation for lower limb paralysis.
consists of a front-wheel drive unit (thick white arrow) that can be attached to a standard wheelchair
and an FES
3. Robotic control part
Rehabilitation with(thin white
FES for SCI arrows) that enables cycling operation for lower limb paralysis.
The following factors have been listed as important in planning a rehabilitation pro-
gram: (1) dose: frequency/long-term repetition of nerve input, (2) quality: quality of nerve
input, and (3) paired associative stimulation: synchronization/consistency of nerve input
[55]. In gait rehabilitation, the "quantity" of repeating correct gait movements and the
“quality” of appropriate neural input according to the gait cycle are considered to be im-
portant. The midbrain gait induction field of the brain stem and the central pattern gen-
erator (CPG) composed of spinal cord interneurons play a role in the expression and drive
of gait movement [56]. It is often difficult to repeat and continue walking training of suf-
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4532 7 of 11

3. Robotic Rehabilitation with FES for SCI

The following factors have been listed as important in planning a rehabilitation pro-
gram: (1) dose: frequency/long-term repetition of nerve input, (2) quality: quality of
nerve input, and (3) paired associative stimulation: synchronization/consistency of nerve
input [55]. In gait rehabilitation, the "quantity" of repeating correct gait movements and
the “quality” of appropriate neural input according to the gait cycle are considered to be
important. The midbrain gait induction field of the brain stem and the central pattern
generator (CPG) composed of spinal cord interneurons play a role in the expression and
drive of gait movement [56]. It is often difficult to repeat and continue walking training
of sufficient quantity and quality via conventional rehabilitation treatment by a physio-
therapist alone. With this in mind, rehabilitation robots can provide valuable assistance
by providing an amount of training as well as motor learning that cannot be obtained by
conventional training.
The pioneer rehabilitation robot for SCI is the Lokomat® , a treadmill walking robot
based on the CPG theory of Diez et al. [57]. The Lokomat® is an exoskeleton-based traveling
robot that assists stepping by robot control, and achieves walking movement patterns of
the lower limbs by motors installed in the hip and knee joints [58]. The effectiveness of
walking training by robot rehabilitation for people with SCI has also been reported for
Wearable Power-Assist Locomotor (WPAL) and hybrid assistive limb (HAL) [59,60].
It is difficult for paralyzed limbs to perform automatic exercises with muscle contrac-
tion even with walking training by robot rehabilitation. However, training can be performed
with automatic muscle contraction from the early stage of onset when a robotic system
is used together with FES. Muscle fatigue is a known problem with FES alone; however,
robot assist can compensate for muscle fatigue, and interactions within the hybrid system
prevent disuse, suppress spasticity, and effectively re-educate neuromuscular muscles. We
have developed a walking training rehabilitation robot with FES for hemiplegics [61], and
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 12
the development of equipment for use with paraplegics is underway (Figure 4).

Figure 4. A walking training rehabilitation robot with functional electrical stimulation (FES) for
Figure A exoskeleton
4. The
paraplegia. walking training rehabilitation
is made based robot device,
on the long leg orthotic with and
functional electrical stimulation (FES) for
the rehabilitation
unloading lift (black
paraplegia. The thick arrow), FES is
exoskeleton andmade
robot orthotic
baseddevice
on the(white
longthick arrow)
leg are attached,
orthotic device, and the rehabilitation
and walking exercise is performed on the treadmill.
unloading lift (black thick arrow), FES and robot orthotic device (white thick arrow) are attached,
4. Future
and walkingDirections of FES
exercise for SCI
is performed on the treadmill.
In recent years, the number of elderly SCI patients has increased [6]. In middle-aged
to elderly people, they might have several physical problems such as osteoporosis, muscle
atrophy and weakness [62,63]. For treatment of osteoporosis in elderly SCI patients, com-
bination with pharmaceutical treatment and neurorehabilitation has been considered as
one of the choices, the meta-analysis by Chang et al. indicates that bisphosphonate admin-
istration early following SCI effectively attenuated sublesional bone loss, and FES inter-
vention for chronic SCI patients could significantly increase sublesional bone mineral den-
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4532 8 of 11

4. Future Directions of FES for SCI

In recent years, the number of elderly SCI patients has increased [6]. In middle-
aged to elderly people, they might have several physical problems such as osteoporosis,
muscle atrophy and weakness [62,63]. For treatment of osteoporosis in elderly SCI patients,
combination with pharmaceutical treatment and neurorehabilitation has been considered
as one of the choices, the meta-analysis by Chang et al. indicates that bisphosphonate
administration early following SCI effectively attenuated sublesional bone loss, and FES
intervention for chronic SCI patients could significantly increase sublesional bone mineral
density near the site of maximal mechanical loading [64]. For prevention and recovery
of muscle atrophy in SCI patients, Kern et al. reviewed that atrophic myofibers could
be rescued by home-based FES using purpose-developed stimulators and electrodes [63].
Future investigations seem required to reach clinically applicable recommendations of
neurorehabilitations for osteoporosis and muscle atrophy as well as weakness in elderly
SCI patients.
In addition, a drawback of FES for patients with quadriplegic upper limbs due to
cervical SCI is that the person cannot operate the device by themselves. Therefore, the
therapist is responsible for activating the stimulation in conventional FES therapy. However,
recent technology using brain machine interface (BMI), and advances in BMI technology
have enabled direct input into the FES device. Rohm et al. reported recovery of finger
function in combination with a BCI and FES for upper limb paralysis due to C4 level
cervical SCI [65]. Several recent studies have reported the reconstruction of reach and
grip movements of the upper limbs using the BCI and FES systems in cervical SCI with
quadriplegia [66,67]. Further developments in rehabilitation using BMI technology and
FES are expected in the future.

5. Conclusions
In recent years, regenerative medicine for SCI has made great strides, and it is pos-
sible that further developments will change SCI treatment completely in the future. FES
is expected to play an important role in the regeneration of paralyzed muscles in the
field of spinal cord regeneration and rehabilitation medicine. In addition, research and
development of rehabilitation robots for paralyzed limbs are progressing dramatically.
Rehabilitation robots are highly effective for promoting stability as an assisting force for
paralyzed limbs. The combined use of technologies such as regenerative medicine, BMIs,
and rehabilitation robot technology with FES is likely to lead to motor reconstruction at the
early stage following SCI.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.K. and Y.S.; methodology, D.K., K.S., R.K., S.C. and
K.H.; validation, D.K., K.S. and R.K.; formal analysis, D.K. and K.S.; investigation, Y.K.; resources,
D.K.; data curation, D.K., K.S., R.K., S.C. and K.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.K.;
writing—review & editing, D.K., K.S., R.K., S.C., K.H., Y.S. and N.M.; visualization, R.K. and K.H.;
supervision, N.M.; project administration, Y.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by JSPS KAKENHI, grant numbers 09671466, 12557122,
and 18K10668.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due
to review article.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.
Data Availability Statement: We did not report any original data in this review article.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank for all of the member of Division of Rehabilitation Medicine,
Akita University Hospital and Akita Motion Analysis Group.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4532 9 of 11

References
1. Lee, B.B.; Cripps, R.A.; Fitzharris, M.; Wing, P.C. The global map for traumatic spinal cord injury epidemiology: Update 2011,
global incidence rate. Spinal Cord 2014, 52, 110–116. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Jazayeri, S.B.; Beygi, S.; Shokraneh, F.; Hagen, E.M.; Rahimi-Movaghar, V. Incidence of traumatic spinal cord injury world-wide:
A systematic review. Eur. Spine J. 2015, 24, 905–918. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Tator, C.H.; Duncan, E.G.; Edmonds, V.E.; Lapczak, L.I.; Andrews, D.F. Changes in epidemiology of acute spinal cord injury from
1947 to 1981. Surg. Neurol. 1993, 40, 207–215. [CrossRef]
4. Roche, S.J.; Sloane, P.A.; McCabe, J.P. Epidemiology of spine trauma in an Irish regional trauma unit: A 4-year study. Injury 2008,
39, 436–442. [CrossRef]
5. Jain, N.B.; Ayers, G.D.; Peterson, E.N.; Harris, M.B.; Morse, L.; O’Connor, K.C.; Garshick, E. Traumatic spinal cord injury in the
United States, 1993–2012. JAMA 2015, 313, 2236–2243. [CrossRef]
6. Miyakoshi, N.; Suda, K.; Kudo, D.; Sakai, H.; Nakagawa, Y.; Mikami, Y.; Suzuki, S.; Tokioka, T.; Tokuhiro, A.; Takei, H.; et al.
A nationwide survey on the incidence and characteristics of traumatic spinal cord injury in Japan in 2018. Spinal Cord 2021,
59, 626–634. [CrossRef]
7. Wirz, M.; Dietz, V. European Multicenter Study of Spinal Cord Injury (EMSCI) Network. Recovery of sensorimotor function and
activities of daily living after cervical spinal cord injury: The influence of age. J. Neurotrauma 2015, 32, 194–199. [CrossRef]
8. Myers, J.; Lee, M.; Kiratli, J. Cardiovascular disease in spinal cord injury: An overview of prevalence, risk, evaluation, and
management. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2007, 86, 142–152. [CrossRef]
9. Barbiellini Amidei, C.; Salmaso, L.; Bellio, S.; Saia, M. Epidemiology of traumatic spinal cord injury: A large population-based
study. Spinal Cord 2022, 8, 1–8. [CrossRef]
10. Nudo, R.J.; Wise, B.M.; SiFuentes, F.; Milliken, G.W. Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery
after ischemic infarct. Science 1996, 272, 1791–1794. [CrossRef]
11. Schmidt, R.A.; Lee, T.D. Motor Leaning and Performance: From Principles to Application, 5th ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL,
USA, 2013; pp. 256–284.
12. Fang, C.Y.; Lien, A.S.; Tsai, J.L.; Yang, H.C.; Chan, H.L.; Chen, R.S.; Chang, Y.J. The effect and dose-response of functional electrical
stimulation cycling training on spasticity in individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Front.
Physiol. 2021, 12, 756200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Bekhet, A.H.; Jahan, A.M.; Bochkezanian, V.; Musselman, K.E.; Elsareih, A.A.; Gorgey, A.S. Effects of electrical stimulation
training on body composition parameters after spinal cord injury: A systematic review. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2021, in press.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Cheung, E.Y.Y.; Ng, T.K.W.; Yu, K.K.K.; Kwan, R.L.C.; Cheing, G.L.Y. Robot-assisted training for people with spinal cord injury: A
meta-analysis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2017, 98, 2320–2331.e12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Athanasiou, A.; Klados, M.A.; Pandria, N.; Foroglou, N.; Kavazidi, K.R.; Polyzoidis, K.; Bamidis, P.D. A systematic review of
investigations into functional brain connectivity following spinal cord injury. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 517. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
16. Pizzolato, C.; Gunduz, M.A.; Palipana, D.; Wu, J.; Grant, G.; Hall, S.; Dennison, R.; Zafonte, R.D.; Lloyd, D.G.; Teng, Y.D.
Non-invasive approaches to functional recovery after spinal cord injury: Therapeutic targets and multimodal device interventions.
Exp. Neurol. 2021, 339, 113612. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Assinck, P.; Duncan, G.J.; Hilton, B.J.; Plemel, J.R.; Tetzlaff, W. Cell transplantation therapy for spinal cord injury. Nat. Neurosci.
2017, 20, 637–647. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Assunção Silva, R.C.; Pinto, L.; Salgado, A.J. Cell transplantation and secretome based approaches in spinal cord injury
regenerative medicine. Med. Res. Rev. 2021, 42, 850–896. [CrossRef]
19. Honmou, O.; Yamashita, T.; Morita, T.; Oshigiri, T.; Hirota, R.; Iyama, S.; Kato, J.; Sasaki, Y.; Ishiai, S.; Ito, Y.M.; et al. Intravenous
infusion of auto serum-expanded autologous mesenchymal stem cells in spinal cord injury patients: 13 case series. Clin. Neurol.
Neurosurg. 2021, 203, 106565. [CrossRef]
20. Lai, B.Q.; Zeng, X.; Han, W.T.; Che, M.T.; Ding, Y.; Li, G.; Zeng, Y.S. Stem cell-derived neuronal relay strategies and functional
electrical stimulation for treatment of spinal cord injury. Biomaterials 2021, 279, 121211. [CrossRef]
21. Liberson, W.T.; Holmquest, H.J.; Scot, D.; Dow, M. Functional electrotherapy; Stimulation of the peroneal nerve synchronized
with the swing phase of the gait of hemiplegic patients. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1961, 42, 101–105.
22. Long, C. An electrophysiologic splint for the hand. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1963, 44, 499–503. [PubMed]
23. Shimada, Y.; Sato, K.; Abe, E.; Kagaya, H.; Ebata, K.; Oba, M.; Sato, M. Clinical experience of functional electrical stimulation in
complete paraplegia. Spinal Cord 1996, 34, 615–619. [CrossRef]
24. Popovic, M.R.; Kapadia, N.; Zivanovic, V.; Furlan, J.C.; Craven, B.C.; McGillivray, C. Functional electrical stimulation therapy of
voluntary grasping versus only conventional rehabilitation for patients with subacute incomplete tetraplegia: A randomized
clinical trial. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2011, 25, 433–442. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Kapadia, N.; Masani, K.; Catharine Craven, B.; Giangregorio, L.M.; Hitzig, S.L.; Richards, K.; Popovic, M.R. A randomized trial of
functional electrical stimulation for walking in incomplete spinal cord injury: Effects on walking competency. J. Spinal Cord Med.
2014, 37, 511–524. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4532 10 of 11

26. Duan, R.; Qu, M.; Yuan, Y.; Lin, M.; Liu, T.; Huang, W.; Gao, J.; Zhang, M.; Yu, X. Clinical Benefit of Rehabilitation Training in
Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Spine 2021, 46, E398–E410. [CrossRef]
27. Peckham, P.H.; Keith, M.W.; Freehafer, A.A. Restoration of functional control by electrical stimulation in the upper extremity of
the quadriplegic patient. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1988, 70, 144–148. [CrossRef]
28. Handa, Y.; Hoshimiya, N. Functional electrical stimulation for the control of the upper extremities. Med. Prog. Technol. 1987,
12, 51–63.
29. Matsunaga, T.; Shimada, Y.; Sato, M.; Chida, S.; Hatakeyama, K.; Misawa, M. Clinical experience of functional electrical
stimulation for restoration of tetraplegic hand function. Akita J. Med. 2007, 34, 137–144.
30. Alon, G.; McBride, K. Persons with C5 or C6 tetraplegia achieve selected functional gains using a neuroprosthesis. Arch. Phys.
Med. Rehabil. 2003, 84, 119–124. [CrossRef]
31. Shimada, Y.; Matsunaga, T.; Kudo, D.; Saito, K.; Iwami, T. Neuroscience of spinal and spinal cord diseases. Functional electrical
stimulation. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2017, 60, 617–621. (In Japanese)
32. Kapadia, N.; Zivanovic, V.; Popovic, M.R. Restoring voluntary grasping function in individuals with incomplete chronic spinal
cord injury: Pilot study. Top. Spinal. Cord Inj. Rehabil. 2013, 19, 279–287. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Patil, S.; Raza, W.A.; Jamil, F.; Caley, R.; O’Connor, R.J. Functional electrical stimulation for the upper limb in tetraplegic spinal
cord injury: A systematic review. J. Med. Eng. Technol. 2014, 39, 419–423. [CrossRef]
34. Andrews, B.J.; Baxendale, R.H.; Barnett, R.; Phillips, G.F.; Yamazaki, T.; Paul, J.P.; Freeman, P.A. Hybrid FES orthosis incorporating
closed loop control and sensory feedback. J. Biomed. Eng. 1988, 10, 189–195. [CrossRef]
35. Kralj, A.; Bajd, T.; Turk, R. Enhancement of gait restoration in spinal injured patients by functional electrical stimulation. Clin.
Orthop. Relat. Res. 1988, 233, 34–43. [CrossRef]
36. Kralj, A.R.; Bajd, T.; Munih, M.; Turk, R. FES gait restoration and balance control in spinal cord-injured patients. Prog. Brain Res.
1993, 97, 387–396.
37. Klose, K.J.; Jacobs, P.L.; Broton, J.G.; Guest, R.S.; Needham-Shropshire, B.M.; Lebwohl, N.; Nash, M.S.; Green, B.A. Evaluation of a
training program for persons with SCI paraplegia using the Parastep 1 ambulation system: Part 1. Ambulation performance and
anthropometric measures. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1997, 78, 789–793. [CrossRef]
38. Marsolais, E.B.; Kobetic, R. Functional electrical stimulation for walking in paraplegia. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1987, 69, 728–733.
[CrossRef]
39. Shimada, Y.; Sato, K.; Kagaya, H.; Konishi, N.; Miyamoto, S.; Matsunaga, T. Clinical use of percutaneous intramuscular electrodes
for functional electrical stimulation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1996, 77, 1014–1018. [CrossRef]
40. Smith, C.; Deimling, A. The use of a neuroprosthesis to correct gait deviations in a patient with incomplete spinal cord injury: A
Case Study. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 2008, 32, 215.
41. Khamis, S.; Martikaro, R.; Wientroub, S.; Hemo, Y.; Hayek, S. A functional electrical stimulation system improves knee control in
crouch gait. J. Child. Orthop. 2015, 9, 137–143. [CrossRef]
42. Hettinga, D.M.; Andrews, B.J. Oxygen consumption during functional electrical stimulation-assisted exercise in persons with
spinal cord injury: Implications for fitness and health. Sports Med. 2008, 38, 825–838. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Laskin, J.J.; Ashley, E.A.; Olenik, L.M.; Burnham, R.; Cumming, D.C.; Steadward, R.D.; Wheeler, G.D. Electrical stimulation-
assisted rowing exercise in spinal cord injured people. A pilot study. Paraplegia 1993, 31, 534–541. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Wheeler, G.D.; Andrews, B.; Lederer, R.; Davoodi, R.; Natho, K.; Weiss, C.; Jeon, J.; Bhambhani, Y.; Steadward, R.D. Functional
electric stimulation-assisted rowing: Increasing cardiovascular fitness through functional electric stimulation rowing training in
persons with spinal cord injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2002, 83, 1093–1099. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Davoodi, R.; Andrews, B.J.; Wheeler, G.D.; Lederer, R. Development of an indoor rowing machine with manual FES controller for
total body exercise in paraplegia. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2002, 10, 197–203. [CrossRef]
46. Hettinga, D.; Andrews, B.J. The feasibility of functional electrical stimulation indoor rowing for high-energy training and sport.
Neuromodulation 2007, 10, 291–297. [CrossRef]
47. Shimada, Y.; Sato, M.; Miyawaki, K.; Iwami, T.; Matsunaga, T.; Hatakeyama, K.; Chida, S.; Itoi, E. The Akita functional
electrical-assisted rowing machine for rehabilitation exercise. Akita J. Med. 2006, 33, 105–111.
48. Taylor, J.A.; Picard, G.; Widrick, J.J. Aerobic capacity with hybrid FES rowing in spinal cord injury: Comparison with arms-only
exercise and preliminary findings with regular training. PM&R 2011, 3, 817–824. [CrossRef]
49. Shaffer, R.F.; Picard, G.; Taylor, J.A. Relationship of spinal cord injury level and duration to peak aerobic capacity with arms-only
and hybrid functional electrical stimulation rowing. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2018, 97, 488–491. [CrossRef]
50. Ye, G.; Grabke, E.P.; Pakosh, M.; Furlan, J.C.; Masani, K. Clinical benefits and system design of FES-rowing exercise for
rehabilitation of individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2021, 102, 1595–1605.
[CrossRef]
51. Van der Scheer, J.W.; Martin Ginis, K.A.; Ditor, D.S.; Goosey-Tolfrey, V.L.; Hicks, A.L.; West, C.R.; Wolfe, D.L. Effects of exercise on
fitness and health of adults with spinal cord injury: A systematic review. Neurology 2017, 89, 736–745. [CrossRef]
52. Van der Scheer, J.W.; Goosey-Tolfrey, V.L.; Valentino, S.E.; Davis, G.M.; Ho, C.H. Functional electrical stimulation cycling exercise
after spinal cord injury: A systematic review of health and fitness-related outcomes. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2021, 18, 99. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4532 11 of 11

53. Sadowsky, C.L.; Hammond, E.R.; Strohl, A.B.; Commean, P.K.; Eby, S.A.; Damiano, D.L.; Wingert, J.R.; Bae, K.T.; McDonald, J.W.,
3rd. Lower extremity functional electrical stimulation cycling promotes physical and functional recovery in chronic spinal cord
injury. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2013, 36, 612–631. [CrossRef]
54. Dolbow, D.R.; Gorgey, A.S.; Ketchum, J.M.; Moore, J.R.; Hackett, L.A.; Gater, D.R. Exercise adherence during home-based
functional electrical stimulation cycling by individuals with spinal cord injury. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012, 91, 922–930.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Hebb, D.O. The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory; Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1949.
56. Dietz, V.; Colombo, G.; Jensen, L. Locomotor activity in spinal man. Lancet 1994, 344, 1260–1263. [CrossRef]
57. Dietz, V.; Colombo, G.; Jensen, L.; Baumgartner, L. Locomotor capacity of spinal cord in paraplegic patients. Ann. Neurol. 1995,
37, 574–582. [CrossRef]
58. Colombo, G.; Wirz, M.; Dietz, V. Driven gait orthosis for improvement of locomotor training in paraplegic patients. Spinal Cord
2001, 39, 252–255. [CrossRef]
59. Tanabe, S.; Hirano, S.; Saitoh, E. Wearable Power-Assist Locomotor (WPAL) for supporting upright walking in persons with
paraplegia. NeuroRehabilitation 2013, 33, 99–106. [CrossRef]
60. Brinkemper, A.; Aach, M.; Grasmücke, D.; Jettkant, B.; Rosteius, T.; Dudda, M.; Yilmaz, E.; Schildhauer, T.A. Improved
physiological gait in acute and chronic SCI patients after training with wearable cyborg hybrid assistive limb. Front. Neurorobot.
2021, 15, 723206. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Kimura, R.; Matsunaga, T.; Iwami, T.; Kudo, D.; Saitoh, K.; Hatakeyama, K.; Watanabe, M.; Takahashi, Y.; Miyakoshi, N.; Shimada,
Y. Development of a rehabilitation robot combined with functional electrical stimulation controlled by non-disabled lower
extremity in hemiplegic gait. Prog. Rehabil. Med. 2018, 3, 20180005. [CrossRef]
62. Haider, I.T.; Lobos, S.M.; Simonian, N.; Schnitzer, T.J.; Edwards, W.B. Bone fragility after spinal cord injury: Reductions in stiffness
and bone mineral at the distal femur and proximal tibia as a function of time. Osteoporos Int. 2018, 29, 2703–2715. [CrossRef]
63. Kern, H.; Hofer, C.; Loefler, S.; Zampieri, S.; Gargiulo, P.; Baba, A.; Marcante, A.; Piccione, F.; Pond, A.; Carraro, U. Atrophy,
ultra-structural disorders, severe atrophy and degeneration of denervated human muscle in SCI and Aging. Implications for their
recovery by Functional Electrical Stimulation, updated 2017. Neurol Res. 2017, 39, 660–666. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Chang, K.V.; Hung, C.Y.; Chen, W.S.; Lai, M.S.; Chien, K.L.; Han, D.S. Effectiveness of bisphosphonate analogues and functional
electrical stimulation on attenuating post-injury osteoporosis in spinal cord injury patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e81124. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Rohm, M.; Schneiders, M.; Müller, C.; Kreilinger, A.; Kaiser, V.; Müller-Putz, G.R.; Rupp, R. Hybrid brain-computer interfaces and
hybrid neuroprostheses for restoration of upper limb functions in individuals with high-level spinal cord injury. Artif. Intell. Med.
2013, 59, 133–142. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Ajiboye, A.B.; Willett, F.R.; Young, D.R.; Memberg, W.D.; Murphy, B.A.; Miller, J.P.; Walter, B.L.; Sweet, J.A.; Hoyen, H.A.; Keith,
M.W.; et al. Restoration of reaching and grasping movements through brain-controlled muscle stimulation in a person with
tetraplegia: A proof-of-concept demonstration. Lancet 2017, 389, 1821–1830. [CrossRef]
67. Jovanovic, L.I.; Kapadia, N.; Zivanovic, V.; Rademeyer, H.J.; Alavinia, M.; McGillivray, C.; Kalsi-Ryan, S.; Popovic, M.R.; Marquez-
Chin, C. Brain-computer interface-triggered functional electrical stimulation therapy for rehabilitation of reaching and grasping
after spinal cord injury: A feasibility study. Spinal Cord Ser. Cases 2021, 7, 24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]