• A F DiMarco.
• Rammelkamp Research Center and MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44109, USA. afd3@po.cwru.edu
• J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001 Nov 1; 38 (6): 601-7.

AbstractApproximately 5% of spinal cord-injured individuals suffer from respiratory muscle paralysis and require chronic mechanical ventilation. Unfortunately, this form of life support is associated with a number of undesirable side effects and discomforts. The only available alternative to mechanical ventilation is diaphragm pacing via bilateral phrenic nerve stimulation. This technique can provide patients with marked improvements in life quality and offers significant advantages compared to mechanical ventilation. Many patients, however, do not have bilateral phrenic function or are not willing to accept the risks inherent with phrenic nerve pacing and therefore are not candidates for this technique. Two alternative methods to ventilate patients with ventilator-dependent tetraplegia are reviewed in this paper. In patients with only a single functional phrenic nerve who are therefore not candidates for phrenic nerve pacing, combined intercostal muscle and unilateral phrenic nerve stimulation has recently been shown to maintain ventilatory support. In patients with bilateral phrenic nerve function, on-going studies suggest that intramuscular diaphragm pacing may be a useful alternative to direct phrenic nerve pacing. With the electrodes placed into the diaphragm laparoscopically, this method allows for the diaphragm to be activated without manipulation of the phrenic nerve, need for thoracotomy, or hospitalization. Both techniques provide benefits similar to that derived from bilateral phrenic nerve pacing and hold promise as alternative methods of ventilatory support in selected populations groups.

18 keywords...

hide…