Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI)Early Phase 1SCIRUSNCT07208188
tESCS for Upper Limb Rehab in Spinal Cord Injury
A Early Phase 1 study testing Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) active group in people with Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI), run by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
Regaining hand and arm function is an important step towards regaining independence following high-level spinal cord injury (tetraplegia). The delivery of small electrical pulses over the skin above the spinal cord, called transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS), appears to improve the arm and hand function of… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI)
- What is being tested?
- Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) active group
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- Nov 2025to Dec 2027
- Phase
- Early Phase 1
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Aged 18 years or over, both sexes.
- At least 6 weeks post-implant (in participants having a surgery for an implant to stabilise the spine).
- ISNCSCI upper extremity motor score between 5 and 30 (both arms/hands)
- GRASSP-strength score >=15 \& <70
- Medically stable, cognitively intact and able to breathe independently.
- Attending upper limb therapy sessions at the QENSIU
- Planned stay longer than the duration of the intervention
- Able to sit for more than 2 hours a day
Who cannot join
- Unstable cervical spine injury
- Needing ventilation assistance during daytime
- Any implanted active metallic device without unconfirmed MRI compatibility (in our previous studies, we safely applied tESCS to participants with MRI-compatible devices/implants)
- Pregnancy and/or lactation.
- Non-injury-related neurological impairment
- Severe spasticity which have been unstable prior to enrolment
Show all 13Show fewer
- Botulinum toxin injections-
- Clinically significant severe depression
- Patients who have cardiovascular disease
- Patients with severe ongoing Autonomic Dysreflexia
- Skin conditions or allergies that may affect electrode placement.
- Current infections
- Patients who have been involved in any other interventional study
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
United Kingdom1 site
Queen Elizabeth National Spinal Injuries Unit
Glasgow, G51 4TF
Mariel A Purcell, MB CHB BAO, +44 141 201 2536, Margaret.Purcell@ggc.scot.nhs.uk
Euan McCaughey, PhD Biomed Eng, euan.mccaughey@nhs.scot
About this study
Official title: Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation for Rehabilitation of Upper Limbs in Early Spinal Cord Injury: Randomised Feasibility Study
Regaining hand and arm function is an important step towards regaining independence following high-level spinal cord injury (tetraplegia). The delivery of small electrical pulses over the skin above the spinal cord, called transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS), appears to improve the arm and hand function of people who have had tetraplegia for several years when delivered at the same time as upper limb therapy. However, tESCS has not been tested in people who have a new spinal cord injury. It should be straightforward to deliver tESCS during standard upper limb therapy sessions to inpatients receiving primary rehabilitation. The investigators want to test the practical aspects of delivering this intervention and also to compare recovery between a group of people who only receive upper limb therapy and a group who receive upper limb therapy and tESCS. If successful, tESCS could in the future be used as part of regular therapy following an acute spinal cord injury. Benefits could include faster and better recovery, reduced stay in hospital, and reduced NHS costs.
Read the detailed description
Background Spinal Cord Injury affects more than 50,000 people in the UK, with an incidence of 2400 new cases every year. Muscular paralysis and sensory loss carry substantial physiological, psychological, financial, and social costs. Almost 60% of people affected by SCI sustain a high-level injury, that is, injury to spinal levels C2-T1, affecting arms and hands. Restoring hand and arm function is a top priority for people with tetraplegia, where even small improvements of motor function, combined with available assistive devices, may greatly improve independence and quality of life.
Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) has emerged as a viable neuromodulation approach for facilitating the recovery of motor function in people with SCI. Studies that have applied tESCS at cervical segments combined with activity-based upper limb rehabilitation. Such active-assisted exercises such as gross and fine motor skill training, maximum voluntary contraction training, and unimanual and bimanual task performance have shown significant improvements in upper limb function.
It is believed that tESCS stimulation activates motor neuronal networks of the spinal cord, including the recruitment of afferent fibres in the posterior root, to elevate spinal network excitability. The underlying hypothesis is that after severe cervical SCI, nonfunctional sensory-motor networks within the cervical spinal cord can be transcutaneously neuromodulated to physiological states that enable and amplify voluntary control of the arm and hand.
A multicentre ONWARD Up-LIFT trial, which included 14 research sites, including QENSIU, has demonstrated functional improvements in people with incomplete chronic tetraplegia. As part of a UK Neuromodulation Network, we were awarded funding to deliver a substantial follow-up study, focusing on chronic complete tetraplegia. The results are showing some neurological recovery but modest functional improvement, indicating that some minimal level of preserved sensory or motor function is required in order to benefit from tESCS. For that reason, the investigators plan to recruit people with incomplete SCI in this study.
Rationale In the area of upper limb rehabilitation, the focus has been mainly on people with chronic SCI, likely due to the lack of alternative rehabilitation strategies and the difficulty in applying acute interventions in the clinical setting [3-8]. However, to date, there have been limited studies reporting the use of tESCS with people with subacute SCI. A randomised controlled trial with 22 complete or incomplete tetraplegic patients (3-12 months post injury, probably recruited from home) compared 8 sessions of tESCS with Armeo robot exercise to 8 sessions of Armeo alone. Both groups achieved comparable functional improvement but Armeo group had a higher change in scores. Our recent search of ClinTrials.gov (search criteria Spinal Cord Injuries, Upper extremity dysfunctions and electrical stimulation) has however, identified no current or future study which includes people with subacute SCI and randomisation.
There are multiple technologies for people with subacute tSCI, including robotics, functional electrical stimulation, or more recently Brain Computer interface. Then, why do the investigators need yet another rehabilitation technology? There are several features that stand tESCS apart from the other rehabilitation technologies, both when it comes to usability and the mechanism of action. Most notably tSCI facilitates performing functional movements, therefore it can be combined with the existing therapy sessions, rather than requiring extra sessions like e.g. robotic devices or having multiple precisely defined stimulation sites like FES. Setup time is much shorter and the price is lower than robotics. This is of critical importance for the clinical adoption of technology, where lack of time in busy therapists' and patients' schedules is often a major barrier to larger-scale trials that would provide solid scientific evidence.
An obvious advantage of using tESCS in the subacute rather than in the chronic stage is the potential to supplement natural recovery. In addition, unused muscle has inevitably deconditioned in chronic SCI, therefore weeks of training to optimise muscle health is preferred prior to chronic tESCS intervention, which itself necessitates a large number of sessions. In one research study, the investigators identified requirements for (accompanied) transport and travel time to and from the hospital as the main factors impeding recruitment and increasing dropout rates in chronic patients. These are not issues for patients undergoing primary rehabilitation Finally, while months of tESCS training are required to achieve improvement in people with chronic SCI, it is not known whether this time would be substantially shorter in people undergoing primary rehabilitation post SCI and whether these benefits would be long-lasting.
Answering these questions and demonstrating the feasibility of delivering tESCS integrated with standard upper limb therapy would be major steps toward adopting this technology into clinical practice.
The investigators aim to test the feasibility of delivering tESCS to hospitalised (undergoing primary rehabilitation) tetraplegic patients by combining it with standard upper limb therapy. The investigators hypothesise that tESCS will be straightforward to implement and that it will not significantly burden staff or interrupt the existing patient schedule. The investigators also hypothesise that combining tESCS with conventional upper limb therapy will result in larger functional and neurological improvements than therapy alone.
Over 60% of people sustaining spinal cord injury have tetraplegia, resulting in a high level of disability. tESCS has shown very promising results in people with chronic injuries. Based on results from these studies, the investigators believe that tESCS has the potential to result.in substantial improvement in neurological recovery if delivered in parallel with primary rehabilitation.
This study will provide the first high quality evidence of the feasibility of incorporating tESCS into clinical practice in the acute care setting. Physical therapy/activity is an essential co-therapy of tESCS By combining tESCS with standard therapy, the additional burden on therapists will be minimised, increasing the chances of successful clinical translation of the technology.
the investigators hypothesise that the positive effect of tESCS will be greater in the acute/subacute than in the chronic phase and that therefore it would be possible to see significant improvement after only a few weeks of intervention. Improved neurological function should lead to a reduced length of stay and healthcare costs. The results of this study will be the first step towards a larger multicentre trial evaluating the early use of tESCS, a vital step towards wider adoption of tESCS in clinical settings. Such clinical adoption would have the potential to benefit all people with acute tetraplegia.
The efficient delivery of tESCS and the relative affordability of the device (costing under £10K they are much cheaper than robotic devices) greatly enhance the generalisability of the results for any future clinical trial.
Theoretical Framework It is believed that tESCS stimulation activates motor neuronal networks of the spinal cord, including the recruitment of afferent fibres in the posterior root, to elevate spinal network excitability. The underlying hypothesis is that after severe cervical SCI, nonfunctional sensory-motor networks within the cervical spinal cord can be transcutaneously neuromodulated to physiological states that enable and amplify voluntary control of the arm and hand
- Conditions
- Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI)
- Being tested
- Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) active group, Sham transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS)
- Keywords
- Tetraplegia, incomplete, subacute, transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation, randmised feasibility study
- Medical subject headings
- Spinal Cord Injuries, Quadriplegia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) active groupDevice
Participants in the active arm will receive 60 min of tESCS alongside the conventional occupation therapy, 20 sessions for 4 weeks, 5 times per week
Sham transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS)Device
The control group will receive only 1 min of tESCS while doing conventional occupational therapy for 60 min. Number of session 20, 4 weeks, 5 times a week
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Experimental | One hour of transcutaneous electrical stimulation alongside conventional occupational therapy Receives: Device: Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) active group |
| Control | Sham comparator | Receiving 1 minute of stimulation alongside the conventional occupational therapy Receives: Device: Sham transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Retention
Recruitment and retention
Measured: From enrollment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Interference
Interference with daily routine
Measured: From enrolment till the end of intervention at 4 weeks
Stimulation
Optimal current stimulation intensity in mA
Measured: From the first till the last intervention session at 4 weeks
Adverse effects
The number of adverse effects
Measured: from the first till the last intervention session at 4 weeks
Feedback
Semi structured interview
Measured: From enrolment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Secondary outcomes (10)
Hand function
Sensory and motor test Graded and Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP), range 0-166 (0 no function, 116 all normal)
Measured: From the first intervention session till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Spinal Cord Independence Measure
Spinal Cord Independence Measure (range 0-100, 100 max independence)
Measured: From the recruitment till the last assessment at 8 weeks
Quality of life basic dataset
International Spinal Cord Injury Data Sets Quality of Life Basic Data Set -Data Form
Measured: From recruitment till the last assessment at 8 weeks
Spasticity
Modified Ashworth Scale range 0-4 (0 no increased tone, 4 very rigid)
Measured: From the enrolment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Dynamometry
Grip force
Measured: From the enrolment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
International Standard for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury
International Standard for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury
Measured: From the enrolment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Motor evoked potential
Transcranial magnetic stimulation with EMG measurement of affected muscle response
Measured: From the recruitment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Somato sensory evoked potential
Measurement of the integrity of the sensory pathways
Measured: From the recruitment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Muscle synergy
Measurement of electromyography of muscles or the same arm/hand
Measured: From the recruitment till the last assesments at 8 weeks
Box and Block test (the number of transferred blocks in 60s, out of 150 blocks)
Manual dexterity
Measured: From the recruitment till the last assessment at 8 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Oct 2025
- Study startNov 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completionOct 2027 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (15)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI)Studies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Early Phase 1
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Randomised feasibility study The study design will be a randomised double blinded feasibility study. The investigators will recruit 20 participants, equally split into active and control interventions. The active group will receive upper limb therapy with transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) 1 hour per day, 5 days per week, for 4 weeks, while the control group will receive the same amount of sham therapy with tESCS electrodes placed as in the active group but with only 1 minute of electrical stimulation to achieve blinding. Note that tESCS has a medical CE mark
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Glasgow, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Aleksandra Vuckovic University O VUCKOVIC, PhD Biomed Eng, Study director, School of Engineering, University of GlasgowMariel A Purcell, MB CHB BAO, Principal investigator, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07208188
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- GN24NE012
- Other IDs
- SMSR009
- Acronym
- SCIRUS
- Status last verified
- Sep 2025
- First submitted
- 1 Sep 2025
- Last updated
- 6 Oct 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Only for patients who agree to share the data. Electrophysiological data -motor evoked potential, somatosensory evoked potential
Publications
Han B, Enas NH, McEntegart D. Randomization by minimization for unbalanced treatment allocation. Stat Med. 2009 Nov 30;28(27):3329-46. doi: 10.1002/sim.3710.
PubMed 19739238Eldridge SM, Costelloe CE, Kahan BC, Lancaster GA, Kerry SM. How big should the pilot study for my cluster randomised trial be? Stat Methods Med Res. 2016 Jun;25(3):1039-56. doi: 10.1177/0962280215588242. Epub 2015 Jun 12.
PubMed 26071431Gawne F, Massey S, Duffell L. The Neurophysiological Effects of Cervical Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation With and Without a High Frequency Carrier in Able-Bodied Adults. Artif Organs. 2025 Dec;49(12):1799-1808. doi: 10.1111/aor.15031. Epub 2025 Jun 3.
PubMed 40457929Salvador-De La Barrera S, Mora-Boga R, Ferreiro-Velasco ME, Seoane-Pillado T, Montoto-Marques A, Rodriguez-Sotillo A, Pertega Diaz S. A validity study of the Spanish-World Health Organization Quality of Life short version instrument in persons with traumatic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2018 Oct;56(10):971-979. doi: 10.1038/s41393-018-0139-2. Epub 2018 May 23.
PubMed 29795170Kirshblum SC, Burns SP, Biering-Sorensen F, Donovan W, Graves DE, Jha A, Johansen M, Jones L, Krassioukov A, Mulcahey MJ, Schmidt-Read M, Waring W. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011). J Spinal Cord Med. 2011 Nov;34(6):535-46. doi: 10.1179/204577211X13207446293695. No abstract available.
PubMed 22330108McNicol EL, Osuagwu B, Purcell M, McCaughey EJ, Lincoln C, Cope L, Vuckovic A. Neurophysiological Effect of Transcutaneous Electrical Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Complete Spinal Cord Injury. Artif Organs. 2025 Dec;49(12):1765-1786. doi: 10.1111/aor.15050. Epub 2025 Jun 30.
PubMed 40583777Moritz C, Field-Fote EC, Tefertiller C, van Nes I, Trumbower R, Kalsi-Ryan S, Purcell M, Janssen TWJ, Krassioukov A, Morse LR, Zhao KD, Guest J, Marino RJ, Murray LM, Wecht JM, Rieger M, Pradarelli J, Turner A, D'Amico J, Squair JW, Courtine G. Non-invasive spinal cord electrical stimulation for arm and hand function in chronic tetraplegia: a safety and efficacy trial. Nat Med. 2024 May;30(5):1276-1283. doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-02940-9. Epub 2024 May 20.
PubMed 38769431Barss TS, Parhizi B, Porter J, Mushahwar VK. Neural Substrates of Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation: Neuromodulation across Multiple Segments of the Spinal Cord. J Clin Med. 2022 Jan 27;11(3):639. doi: 10.3390/jcm11030639.
PubMed 35160091Chandrasekaran S, Bhagat NA, Ramdeo R, Ebrahimi S, Sharma PD, Griffin DG, Stein A, Harkema SJ, Bouton CE. Targeted transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation promotes persistent recovery of upper limb strength and tactile sensation in spinal cord injury: a pilot study. Front Neurosci. 2023 Jul 7;17:1210328. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1210328. eCollection 2023.
PubMed 37483349McGeady C, Vuckovic A, Singh Tharu N, Zheng YP, Alam M. Brain-Computer Interface Priming for Cervical Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy: An Exploratory Case Study. Front Rehabil Sci. 2022 Jun 23;3:896766. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2022.896766. eCollection 2022.
PubMed 36188944Inanici 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 Jun;26(6):1272-1278. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2834339.
PubMed 29877852Freyvert Y, Yong NA, Morikawa E, Zdunowski S, Sarino ME, Gerasimenko Y, Edgerton VR, Lu DC. Engaging cervical spinal circuitry with non-invasive spinal stimulation and buspirone to restore hand function in chronic motor complete patients. Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 19;8(1):15546. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-33123-5.
PubMed 30341390Gad P, Lee S, Terrafranca N, Zhong H, Turner A, Gerasimenko Y, Edgerton VR. Non-Invasive Activation of Cervical Spinal Networks after Severe Paralysis. J Neurotrauma. 2018 Sep 15;35(18):2145-2158. doi: 10.1089/neu.2017.5461.
PubMed 29649928Khorasanizadeh M, Yousefifard M, Eskian M, Lu Y, Chalangari M, Harrop JS, Jazayeri SB, Seyedpour S, Khodaei B, Hosseini M, Rahimi-Movaghar V. Neurological recovery following traumatic spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019 Feb 15;30(5):683-699. doi: 10.3171/2018.10.SPINE18802. Print 2019 May 1.
PubMed 30771786Anderson KD. Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord-injured population. J Neurotrauma. 2004 Oct;21(10):1371-83. doi: 10.1089/neu.2004.21.1371.
PubMed 15672628
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 Oct 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation for Rehabilitation of Upper Limbs in Early Spinal Cord Injury: Randomised Feasibility Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07208188
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SCIRUS / GN24NE012
- Conditions
- Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI)
- Keywords
- Tetraplegia, incomplete, subacute, transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation, randmised feasibility study
- Phase
- Early Phase 1
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- NHS Greater Glasgow and ClydeUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Glasgow, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital
- Study start
- Nov 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Oct 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 6 Oct 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Regaining hand and arm function is an important step towards regaining independence following high-level spinal cord injury (tetraplegia). The delivery of small electrical pulses over the skin above the spinal cord, called transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS), appears to improve the arm and hand function of people who have had tetraplegia for several years when delivered at the same time as upper limb therapy. However, tESCS has not been tested in people who have a new spinal cord injury. It should be straightforward to deliver tESCS during standard upper limb therapy sessions to inpatients receiving primary rehabilitation. The investigators want to test the practical aspects of delivering this intervention and also to compare recovery between a group of people who only receive upper limb therapy and a group who receive upper limb therapy and tESCS. If successful, tESCS could in the future be used as part of regular therapy following an acute spinal cord injury. Benefits could include faster and better recovery, reduced stay in hospital, and reduced NHS costs.
Detailed description
Background Spinal Cord Injury affects more than 50,000 people in the UK, with an incidence of 2400 new cases every year. Muscular paralysis and sensory loss carry substantial physiological, psychological, financial, and social costs. Almost 60% of people affected by SCI sustain a high-level injury, that is, injury to spinal levels C2-T1, affecting arms and hands. Restoring hand and arm function is a top priority for people with tetraplegia, where even small improvements of motor function, combined with available assistive devices, may greatly improve independence and quality of life.
Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) has emerged as a viable neuromodulation approach for facilitating the recovery of motor function in people with SCI. Studies that have applied tESCS at cervical segments combined with activity-based upper limb rehabilitation. Such active-assisted exercises such as gross and fine motor skill training, maximum voluntary contraction training, and unimanual and bimanual task performance have shown significant improvements in upper limb function.
It is believed that tESCS stimulation activates motor neuronal networks of the spinal cord, including the recruitment of afferent fibres in the posterior root, to elevate spinal network excitability. The underlying hypothesis is that after severe cervical SCI, nonfunctional sensory-motor networks within the cervical spinal cord can be transcutaneously neuromodulated to physiological states that enable and amplify voluntary control of the arm and hand.
A multicentre ONWARD Up-LIFT trial, which included 14 research sites, including QENSIU, has demonstrated functional improvements in people with incomplete chronic tetraplegia. As part of a UK Neuromodulation Network, we were awarded funding to deliver a substantial follow-up study, focusing on chronic complete tetraplegia. The results are showing some neurological recovery but modest functional improvement, indicating that some minimal level of preserved sensory or motor function is required in order to benefit from tESCS. For that reason, the investigators plan to recruit people with incomplete SCI in this study.
Rationale In the area of upper limb rehabilitation, the focus has been mainly on people with chronic SCI, likely due to the lack of alternative rehabilitation strategies and the difficulty in applying acute interventions in the clinical setting [3-8]. However, to date, there have been limited studies reporting the use of tESCS with people with subacute SCI. A randomised controlled trial with 22 complete or incomplete tetraplegic patients (3-12 months post injury, probably recruited from home) compared 8 sessions of tESCS with Armeo robot exercise to 8 sessions of Armeo alone. Both groups achieved comparable functional improvement but Armeo group had a higher change in scores. Our recent search of ClinTrials.gov (search criteria Spinal Cord Injuries, Upper extremity dysfunctions and electrical stimulation) has however, identified no current or future study which includes people with subacute SCI and randomisation.
There are multiple technologies for people with subacute tSCI, including robotics, functional electrical stimulation, or more recently Brain Computer interface. Then, why do the investigators need yet another rehabilitation technology? There are several features that stand tESCS apart from the other rehabilitation technologies, both when it comes to usability and the mechanism of action. Most notably tSCI facilitates performing functional movements, therefore it can be combined with the existing therapy sessions, rather than requiring extra sessions like e.g. robotic devices or having multiple precisely defined stimulation sites like FES. Setup time is much shorter and the price is lower than robotics. This is of critical importance for the clinical adoption of technology, where lack of time in busy therapists' and patients' schedules is often a major barrier to larger-scale trials that would provide solid scientific evidence.
An obvious advantage of using tESCS in the subacute rather than in the chronic stage is the potential to supplement natural recovery. In addition, unused muscle has inevitably deconditioned in chronic SCI, therefore weeks of training to optimise muscle health is preferred prior to chronic tESCS intervention, which itself necessitates a large number of sessions. In one research study, the investigators identified requirements for (accompanied) transport and travel time to and from the hospital as the main factors impeding recruitment and increasing dropout rates in chronic patients. These are not issues for patients undergoing primary rehabilitation Finally, while months of tESCS training are required to achieve improvement in people with chronic SCI, it is not known whether this time would be substantially shorter in people undergoing primary rehabilitation post SCI and whether these benefits would be long-lasting.
Answering these questions and demonstrating the feasibility of delivering tESCS integrated with standard upper limb therapy would be major steps toward adopting this technology into clinical practice.
The investigators aim to test the feasibility of delivering tESCS to hospitalised (undergoing primary rehabilitation) tetraplegic patients by combining it with standard upper limb therapy. The investigators hypothesise that tESCS will be straightforward to implement and that it will not significantly burden staff or interrupt the existing patient schedule. The investigators also hypothesise that combining tESCS with conventional upper limb therapy will result in larger functional and neurological improvements than therapy alone.
Over 60% of people sustaining spinal cord injury have tetraplegia, resulting in a high level of disability. tESCS has shown very promising results in people with chronic injuries. Based on results from these studies, the investigators believe that tESCS has the potential to result.in substantial improvement in neurological recovery if delivered in parallel with primary rehabilitation.
This study will provide the first high quality evidence of the feasibility of incorporating tESCS into clinical practice in the acute care setting. Physical therapy/activity is an essential co-therapy of tESCS By combining tESCS with standard therapy, the additional burden on therapists will be minimised, increasing the chances of successful clinical translation of the technology.
the investigators hypothesise that the positive effect of tESCS will be greater in the acute/subacute than in the chronic phase and that therefore it would be possible to see significant improvement after only a few weeks of intervention. Improved neurological function should lead to a reduced length of stay and healthcare costs. The results of this study will be the first step towards a larger multicentre trial evaluating the early use of tESCS, a vital step towards wider adoption of tESCS in clinical settings. Such clinical adoption would have the potential to benefit all people with acute tetraplegia.
The efficient delivery of tESCS and the relative affordability of the device (costing under £10K they are much cheaper than robotic devices) greatly enhance the generalisability of the results for any future clinical trial.
Theoretical Framework It is believed that tESCS stimulation activates motor neuronal networks of the spinal cord, including the recruitment of afferent fibres in the posterior root, to elevate spinal network excitability. The underlying hypothesis is that after severe cervical SCI, nonfunctional sensory-motor networks within the cervical spinal cord can be transcutaneously neuromodulated to physiological states that enable and amplify voluntary control of the arm and hand
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Randomised feasibility study The study design will be a randomised double blinded feasibility study. The investigators will recruit 20 participants, equally split into active and control interventions. The active group will receive upper limb therapy with transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) 1 hour per day, 5 days per week, for 4 weeks, while the control group will receive the same amount of sham therapy with tESCS electrodes placed as in the active group but with only 1 minute of electrical stimulation to achieve blinding. Note that tESCS has a medical CE mark
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Experimental | Device: Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) active groupOne hour of transcutaneous electrical stimulation alongside conventional occupational therapy |
| Control | Sham comparator | Device: Sham transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS)Receiving 1 minute of stimulation alongside the conventional occupational therapy |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Aged 18 years or over, both sexes.
- At least 6 weeks post-implant (in participants having a surgery for an implant to stabilise the spine).
- ISNCSCI upper extremity motor score between 5 and 30 (both arms/hands)
- GRASSP-strength score >=15 \& <70
- Medically stable, cognitively intact and able to breathe independently.
Key exclusion criteria (13 listed)
- Unstable cervical spine injury
- Needing ventilation assistance during daytime
- Any implanted active metallic device without unconfirmed MRI compatibility (in our previous studies, we safely applied tESCS to participants with MRI-compatible devices/implants)
- Pregnancy and/or lactation.
- Non-injury-related neurological impairment
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) active groupParticipants in the active arm will receive 60 min of tESCS alongside the conventional occupation therapy, 20 sessions for 4 weeks, 5 times per week | Device | Intervention |
| Sham transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS)The control group will receive only 1 min of tESCS while doing conventional occupational therapy for 60 min. Number of session 20, 4 weeks, 5 times a week | Device | Control |
Primary outcome
Retention
Time frame: From enrollment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Recruitment and retention
Interference
Time frame: From enrolment till the end of intervention at 4 weeks
Interference with daily routine
Stimulation
Time frame: From the first till the last intervention session at 4 weeks
Optimal current stimulation intensity in mA
Adverse effects
Time frame: from the first till the last intervention session at 4 weeks
The number of adverse effects
Feedback
Time frame: From enrolment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Semi structured interview
10 secondary outcomes
Hand function
Time frame: From the first intervention session till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Spinal Cord Independence Measure
Time frame: From the recruitment till the last assessment at 8 weeks
Quality of life basic dataset
Time frame: From recruitment till the last assessment at 8 weeks
Spasticity
Time frame: From the enrolment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Dynamometry
Time frame: From the enrolment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
International Standard for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury
Time frame: From the enrolment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Motor evoked potential
Time frame: From the recruitment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Somato sensory evoked potential
Time frame: From the recruitment till the last assesment at 8 weeks
Muscle synergy
Time frame: From the recruitment till the last assesments at 8 weeks
Box and Block test (the number of transferred blocks in 60s, out of 150 blocks)
Time frame: From the recruitment till the last assessment at 8 weeks
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 Oct 2025.
- Background: PubMed 19739238Han B, Enas NH, McEntegart D. Randomization by minimization for unbalanced treatment allocation. Stat Med. 2009 Nov 30;28(27):3329-46. doi: 10.1002/sim.3710.
- Background: PubMed 26071431Eldridge SM, Costelloe CE, Kahan BC, Lancaster GA, Kerry SM. How big should the pilot study for my cluster randomised trial be? Stat Methods Med Res. 2016 Jun;25(3):1039-56. doi: 10.1177/0962280215588242. Epub 2015 Jun 12.
- Background: PubMed 40457929Gawne F, Massey S, Duffell L. The Neurophysiological Effects of Cervical Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation With and Without a High Frequency Carrier in Able-Bodied Adults. Artif Organs. 2025 Dec;49(12):1799-1808. doi: 10.1111/aor.15031. Epub 2025 Jun 3.
- Background: PubMed 29795170Salvador-De La Barrera S, Mora-Boga R, Ferreiro-Velasco ME, Seoane-Pillado T, Montoto-Marques A, Rodriguez-Sotillo A, Pertega Diaz S. A validity study of the Spanish-World Health Organization Quality of Life short version instrument in persons with traumatic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2018 Oct;56(10):971-979. doi: 10.1038/s41393-018-0139-2. Epub 2018 May 23.
- Background: PubMed 22330108Kirshblum SC, Burns SP, Biering-Sorensen F, Donovan W, Graves DE, Jha A, Johansen M, Jones L, Krassioukov A, Mulcahey MJ, Schmidt-Read M, Waring W. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011). J Spinal Cord Med. 2011 Nov;34(6):535-46. doi: 10.1179/204577211X13207446293695. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 40583777McNicol EL, Osuagwu B, Purcell M, McCaughey EJ, Lincoln C, Cope L, Vuckovic A. Neurophysiological Effect of Transcutaneous Electrical Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Complete Spinal Cord Injury. Artif Organs. 2025 Dec;49(12):1765-1786. doi: 10.1111/aor.15050. Epub 2025 Jun 30.
- Background: PubMed 38769431Moritz C, Field-Fote EC, Tefertiller C, van Nes I, Trumbower R, Kalsi-Ryan S, Purcell M, Janssen TWJ, Krassioukov A, Morse LR, Zhao KD, Guest J, Marino RJ, Murray LM, Wecht JM, Rieger M, Pradarelli J, Turner A, D'Amico J, Squair JW, Courtine G. Non-invasive spinal cord electrical stimulation for arm and hand function in chronic tetraplegia: a safety and efficacy trial. Nat Med. 2024 May;30(5):1276-1283. doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-02940-9. Epub 2024 May 20.
- Background: PubMed 35160091Barss TS, Parhizi B, Porter J, Mushahwar VK. Neural Substrates of Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation: Neuromodulation across Multiple Segments of the Spinal Cord. J Clin Med. 2022 Jan 27;11(3):639. doi: 10.3390/jcm11030639.
- Background: PubMed 37483349Chandrasekaran S, Bhagat NA, Ramdeo R, Ebrahimi S, Sharma PD, Griffin DG, Stein A, Harkema SJ, Bouton CE. Targeted transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation promotes persistent recovery of upper limb strength and tactile sensation in spinal cord injury: a pilot study. Front Neurosci. 2023 Jul 7;17:1210328. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1210328. eCollection 2023.
- Background: PubMed 36188944McGeady C, Vuckovic A, Singh Tharu N, Zheng YP, Alam M. Brain-Computer Interface Priming for Cervical Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy: An Exploratory Case Study. Front Rehabil Sci. 2022 Jun 23;3:896766. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2022.896766. eCollection 2022.
- Background: PubMed 29877852Inanici 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 Jun;26(6):1272-1278. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2834339.
- Background: PubMed 30341390Freyvert Y, Yong NA, Morikawa E, Zdunowski S, Sarino ME, Gerasimenko Y, Edgerton VR, Lu DC. Engaging cervical spinal circuitry with non-invasive spinal stimulation and buspirone to restore hand function in chronic motor complete patients. Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 19;8(1):15546. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-33123-5.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Only for patients who agree to share the data. Electrophysiological data -motor evoked potential, somatosensory evoked potential
Related trials for Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI)
Recruiting
MyHand-SCI: An Active Hand Orthosis for Spinal Cord Injury
Spinal Cord Injuries, Tetraplegia
Recruiting
Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation Combined With 4-Aminopyridine and Intensive Rehabilitation in SCI
Spinal Cord Injuries
Enrolling by invitation
Brief Prolonged Exposure Therapy Versus Clinical Standard to Reduce Posttraumatic Stress Post Spinal Cord Injury
Spinal Cord Injuries, PTSD
RecruitingPhase 2/3
Pilot Study of Galantamine to Treat Metabolic Syndrome in People With Chronic Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury (SCI)
Spinal Cord Injury, Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury
Active, not recruitingObservational study
SCIVAX: Biomarkers of Immune Dysfunction and Vaccine Responsiveness in Chronic SCI
Spinal Cord Injuries, Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Aleksandra Vuckovic University O VUCKOVIC, PhD Biomed Eng study director
School of Engineering, University of Glasgow
Mariel A Purcell, MB CHB BAO principal investigator
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Early Phase 1 study testing Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tESCS) active group in people with Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI), run by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 8 inclusion and 13 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 Oct 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Early Phase 1 (sometimes called Phase 0) studies give a very small amount of a treatment to a few people, mainly to see how the body handles it.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Mariel A Purcell, MB CHB BAO (+44 141 201 2536, Margaret.Purcell@ggc.scot.nhs.uk), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Retention (time frame: From enrollment till the last assesment at 8 weeks). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07208188, which also lists 15 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 Oct 2025.