Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Nick Terrafranca from Neurorecovery Technologies presentation

  1. #21
    Senior Member Oddity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    3,183
    Blog Entries
    1
    Ok, so, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm crippled, and I expect to be, for the rest of my life, but, I do love it when these conversations go over my head. It makes me feel like smarter people than me are working to solve this puzzle. That's about as good as I could hope for, at this point.

    Keep it up.



    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Bellman View Post
    You're right. This technology could satisfy the criteria for the EAP program and get to market sooner. Ultimately, it comes down to risk vs. benefit and it's up to the FDA to decide.



    "Powerful" wasn't the best word choice, though it was the most colloquial. As I'm sure you know, electrical power is the product of voltage and current. In this context, the question was about whether or not a typical electrical stimulation device, as may be commonly purchased at a pharmacy or other retailer, would be able to generate voltages high enough to pass a therapeutically significant amount of current through the target tissues. Human tissue, especially skin and fat, have a high impedance, enabling alternating currents to pass through more easily than direct currents (part of why we all use alternating waveforms), so waveform and frequency do matter (though probably less than expected in this case).

    I think the most important statement here is the one based on your own experience that, under similar conditions, your body responded to the NRT device as it would have to other FES devices. What other FES device(s) did you try it with?

    An interesting side question: to what extent do you think the proprietary characteristics of the NRT device matter in terms of the ultimate outcomes being sought here? In other words, could someone get 95% of the same benefits seen with the NRT device while using an affordable, off-the-shelf stimulator that's already available? Or is it maybe only 5%?
    "If you only know your side of an issue, you know nothing." -John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

    "Even what those with the greatest reputation for knowing it all claim to understand and defend are but opinions..." -Heraclitus, Fragments

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    2,185
    Tomsonite: my Genesy 1200 goes to 120 mA so 180 mA is certainly higher but not by orders of magnitude. More important to safety is mono vs bi-phasic waveforms where monophasic (asymmetric) will build up excessive charge at the anode. Also, 30/10kHz is only one mode the NRT unit is capable of.

    Matt: I doubt a drug store TENS unit can do much. A consumer FES like Genesy or Chattanooga will have some effect on some people, but my beat guess would be 10% of the effect at best as I've even managed to recreate the dual frequency approach but without the results of the NRT unit. Fortunately, once it clears the FDA (pending funding) the target MSRP is $2,500 which is in reach for many and it will have its own Medicare coding as well.
    T3 complete since Sept 2015.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    2,185
    Oh, also NRT are very excited to combine transcutaneous stim with this:
    https://m.medicalxpress.com/news/201...rd-injury.html
    T3 complete since Sept 2015.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Mize View Post
    Tomsonite: my Genesy 1200 goes to 120 mA so 180 mA is certainly higher but not by orders of magnitude. More important to safety is mono vs bi-phasic waveforms where monophasic (asymmetric) will build up excessive charge at the anode. Also, 30/10kHz is only one mode the NRT unit is capable of.

    Matt: I doubt a drug store TENS unit can do much. A consumer FES like Genesy or Chattanooga will have some effect on some people, but my beat guess would be 10% of the effect at best as I've even managed to recreate the dual frequency approach but without the results of the NRT unit. Fortunately, once it clears the FDA (pending funding) the target MSRP is $2,500 which is in reach for many and it will have its own Medicare coding as well.
    180 mA is not orders of magnitude higher, but as far as I'm aware, exceeds the current FDA limit on clinical stimulators (which, when I was still working in the clinic, was 140 mA I believe). In one of the original papers published by Edgerton/Gerasimenko et al, they used a monophasic waveform, which I imagine would be adjustable on their device but is certainly a safety consideration, as you point out. I know a couple of clinics that have been getting motor-enabling results with a Chattanooga stimulator, but I don't think it has been as robust as what NRT is reporting. From what I've been told, the carrier frequency they're using is what lets them increase the amplitude so high, which is one of the things that make the capabilities of their stimulator unique.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mize View Post
    Oh, also NRT are very excited to combine transcutaneous stim with this:
    https://m.medicalxpress.com/news/201...rd-injury.html
    Interesting, I haven't heard that. I do know in one of their original papers they gave a drug that acts on serotonin receptors, and that amplified the results they got vs. when they used the stimulator alone. There are many different ways to manipulate serotonin and other neuromodulatory neurotransmitters (that's what I'm currently doing my PhD on actually). My theory is that in the end, this stimulator will be best when combined with chemical neuromodulation and rehab/exercise - time will tell, of course.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Mize View Post
    Tomsonite: my Genesy 1200 goes to 120 mA so 180 mA is certainly higher but not by orders of magnitude. More important to safety is mono vs bi-phasic waveforms where monophasic (asymmetric) will build up excessive charge at the anode. Also, 30/10kHz is only one mode the NRT unit is capable of.
    Since we're being precise with our language, monophasic, biphasic, symmetric, asymmetric...none of those characteristics matter when it comes to charge build-up. All that matters is charge balance (i.e., Coulombs in, Coulombs out), which can be achieved in many ways. For example, our stimulators use biphasic, symmetric, rectangular pulses, which is characteristically charge-balanced. RTI uses alternating monophasic pulse (rectangular, symmetric) to achieve charge balance. TENS units are usually biphasic with asymmetric phases, but the phases transfer the same total charge in and out of the tissue. Of course, this also depends on whether you're using monopolar, bipolar, or even tripolar electrode configurations...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mize View Post
    Matt: I doubt a drug store TENS unit can do much. A consumer FES like Genesy or Chattanooga will have some effect on some people, but my beat guess would be 10% of the effect at best as I've even managed to recreate the dual frequency approach but without the results of the NRT unit. Fortunately, once it clears the FDA (pending funding) the target MSRP is $2,500 which is in reach for many and it will have its own Medicare coding as well.
    Interesting. I know Becca Martin at Kennedy Krieger is doing transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in pediatric populations using an Empi 300V, and it accomplishes the same thing, though it doesn't work as well in adults because adults are physically larger, which is the thought process behind my earlier comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by tomsonite View Post
    180 mA is not orders of magnitude higher, but as far as I'm aware, exceeds the current FDA limit on clinical stimulators (which, when I was still working in the clinic, was 140 mA I believe). In one of the original papers published by Edgerton/Gerasimenko et al, they used a monophasic waveform, which I imagine would be adjustable on their device but is certainly a safety consideration, as you point out. I know a couple of clinics that have been getting motor-enabling results with a Chattanooga stimulator, but I don't think it has been as robust as what NRT is reporting. From what I've been told, the carrier frequency they're using is what lets them increase the amplitude so high, which is one of the things that make the capabilities of their stimulator unique.
    Technically, the FDA doesn't specify a limit. If you're claiming substantial equivalence to a predicate device, you're limited (mostly) to what that predicate does. However, generally speaking, the FDA follows the muscle and nerve stimulator standard, IEC 60601-2-10, which specifies the safe output limits. Without going into all the details, the safe limits are much higher than what anyone uses, primarily because of issues with sensation. Also worth mentioning that the larger your electrodes, the safer it is to use higher currents, because it's current density (W/cm^2) that matters when you're talking about pain and burns.
    Co-founder & CTO of MYOLYN - FES Technology for People with Paralysis - Empowering People to Move

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 171
    Last Post: 07-03-2018, 07:00 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-01-2017, 08:53 PM
  3. walking help neurorecovery?
    By freedomdan in forum Exercise & Recovery
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 01:06 AM
  4. Neurorecovery, Inc.
    By manouli in forum Cure
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-25-2005, 04:05 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-25-2001, 08:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •