CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19)

Resources on COVID-19 and how BCBSND is responding to help protect all North Dakotans

Functional Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation

Revised Date: September 26, 2019
Last Reviewed: September 26, 2019

Description

Functional neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is a method being developed to restore function to patients with damaged or destroyed nerve pathways through use of an orthotic device with microprocessor controlled electrical neuromuscular stimulation (neuroprosthesis).

Background

Neural prosthetic devices consist of an orthotic and a microprocessor-based electronic stimulator with one or more channels for delivery of individual pulses through surface or implanted electrodes connected to the neuromuscular system. Microprocessor programs activate the channels sequentially or in unison to stimulate peripheral nerves and trigger muscle contractions to produce functionally useful movements that allow patients to sit, stand, walk, and grasp. Functional neuromuscular stimulators are closed-loop systems, which provide feedback information on muscle force and joint position, thus allowing constant modification of stimulation parameters which are required for complex activities such as walking. These are contrasted with open-loop systems, which are used for simple tasks such as muscle strengthening alone, and typically in healthy individuals with intact neural control.

One application of functional neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is to restore upper extremity functions such as grasp-release, forearm pronation, and elbow extension in patients with stroke, or C5 and C6 tetraplegia (quadriplegia). The Neurocontrol Freehand system is an implantable upper extremity neuroprosthesis intended to improve a patient’s ability to grasp, hold, and release objects and is indicated for use in patients who are tetraplegic due to C5 or C6 spinal cord injury. The implantable Freehand System is no longer marketed in the U.S., though the company provides maintenance for devices already implanted. The Handmaster NMS I [neuromuscular stimulator] is another device that uses surface electrodes and is purported to provide hand active range of motion and function for patients with stroke or C5 tetraplegia.

Other neural prosthetic devices have been developed for functional NMES in patients with foot drop. Foot drop is weakness of the foot and ankle that causes reduced dorsiflexion and difficulty with ambulation. It can have various causes such as cerebral palsy, stroke or multiple sclerosis (MS). Functional electrical stimulation of the peroneal nerve has been suggested for these patients as an aid in raising the toes during the swing phase of ambulation. Examples of such devices used for treatment of foot drop are the Innovative Neurotronics’ (formerly NeuroMotion, Inc.) WalkAide®, Bioness’ radiofrequency controlled NESS L300™, and the Odstock Foot Drop Stimulator.

Another application of functional electrical stimulation is to provide spinal cord-injured patients with the ability to stand and walk. Generally, only spinal cord injury patients with lesions from T4 to T12 are considered candidates for ambulation systems. Lesions at T1–T3 are associated with poor trunk stability, while lumbar lesions imply lower extremity nerve damage. Using percutaneous stimulation, the device delivers trains of electrical pulses to trigger action potentials at selected nerves at the quadriceps (for knee extension), the common peroneal nerve (for hip flexion), and the paraspinals and gluteals (for trunk stability). Patients use a walker or elbow-support crutches for further support. The electrical impulses are controlled by a computer microchip attached to the patient’s belt that synchronizes and distributes the signals. In addition, there is a finger-controlled switch that permits patient activation of the stepping.

Other devices include a reciprocating gait orthosis (RGO) with electrical stimulation. The orthosis used is a cumbersome hip-knee-ankle-foot device linked together with a cable at the hip joint. The use of this device may be limited by the difficulties in putting the device on and taking it off.

Neuromuscular stimulation is also proposed for motor restoration in hemiplegia and treatment of secondary dysfunction (e.g., muscle atrophy and alterations in cardiovascular function and bone density) associated with damage to motor nerve pathways. These applications are not addressed in this policy (See Benefit Application section).

Regulatory Status

The Neurocontrol Freehand system received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1997 through the pre-market approval (PMA) process. The Handmaster NMS I system was originally cleared for use in maintaining or improving range of motion, reducing muscle spasm, preventing or retarding muscle atrophy, providing muscle re-education, and improving circulation; in 2001, its 510(k) marketing clearance was expanded to include provision of hand active range of motion and function for patients with C5 tetraplegia.

The WalkAide device first received 510(k) marketing clearance from the FDA in the 1990s; the current version of the WalkAide device received 510(k) marketing clearance in September 2005. The Odstock Foot Drop Stimulator received 510(k) marketing clearance in 2005. The Bioness NESS L300 received 510(k) marketing clearance in July 2006. The FDA summaries for the devices state that they are intended to be used in patients with drop foot by assisting with ankle dorsiflexion during the swing phase of gait.

To date, the Parastep® Ambulation System is the only noninvasive functional walking neuromuscular stimulation device to receive premarket approval (PMA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Parastep device is approved to “enable appropriately selected skeletally mature spinal cord injured patients (level C6-T12) to stand and attain limited ambulation and/or take steps, with assistance if required, following a prescribed period of physical therapy training in conjunction with rehabilitation management of spinal cord injury.”

Criteria

Neuromuscular stimulation is considered investigational as a technique to restore function following nerve damage or nerve injury. This includes its use in the following situations: 

  • As a technique to provide ambulation in patients with spinal cord injury; or 
  • To provide upper extremity function in patients with nerve damage (e.g., spinal cord injury or poststroke); or 
  • To improve ambulation in patients with foot drop caused by congenital disorders (e.g., cerebral palsy) or nerve damage (e.g., post stroke, or in those with multiple sclerosis). 

Members must consult their applicable benefit plans or contact a Member Services representative for specific coverage information. 

Billing and Coding

E0764 Functional neuromuscular stimulator, transcutaneous stimulation of muscles of ambulation with computer control, used for walking by spinal cord injured, entire system after completion of training program
E0770 Functional electrical stimulator, transcutaneous stimulation of nerve and/or muscle groups, any type, complete system, not otherwise specified

Sources

  1. Chaplin E. Functional neuromuscular stimulation for mobility in people with spinal cord injuries. The Parastep I System. J Spinal Cord Med. Apr 1996;19(2):99-105. PMID 8732878
  2. Klose KJ, Jacobs PL, Broton JG, et al. 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. Aug 1997;78(8):789-793. PMID 9344294
  3. Jacobs PL, Nash MS, Klose KJ, et al. Evaluation of a training program for persons with SCI paraplegia using the Parastep 1 ambulation system: part 2. Effects on physiological responses to peak arm ergometry. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Aug 1997;78(8):794-798. PMID 9344295
  4. Needham-Shropshire BM, Broton JG, Klose KJ, et al. Evaluation of a training program for persons with SCI paraplegia using the Parastep 1 ambulation system: part 3. Lack of effect on bone mineral density. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Aug 1997;78(8):799-803. PMID 9344296
  5. Guest RS, Klose KJ, Needham-Shropshire BM, et al. Evaluation of a training program for persons with SCI paraplegia using the Parastep 1 ambulation system: part 4. Effect on physical self-concept and depression. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Aug 1997;78(8):804-807. PMID 9344297
  6. Nash MS, Jacobs PL, Montalvo BM, et al. Evaluation of a training program for persons with SCI paraplegia using the Parastep 1 ambulation system: part 5. Lower extremity blood flow and hyperemic responses to occlusion are augmented by ambulation training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Aug 1997;78(8):808-814. PMID 9344298
  7. Graupe D, Kohn KH. Functional neuromuscular stimulator for short-distance ambulation by certain thoracic-level spinal-cord-injured paraplegics. Surg Neurol. Sep 1998;50(3):202-207. PMID 9736079
  8. Brissot R, Gallien P, Le Bot MP, et al. Clinical experience with functional electrical stimulation-assisted gait with Parastep in spinal cord-injured patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Feb 15 2000;25(4):501-508. PMID 10707398
  9. Davis JA, Jr., Triolo RJ, Uhlir J, et al. Preliminary performance of a surgically implanted neuroprosthesis for standing and transfers–where do we stand? J Rehabil Res Dev. Nov-Dec 2001;38(6):609-617. PMID 11767968
  10. Sykes L, Ross ER, Powell ES, et al. Objective measurement of use of the reciprocating gait orthosis (RGO) and the electrically augmented RGO in adult patients with spinal cord lesions. Prosthet Orthot Int. Dec 1996;20(3):182-190. PMID 8985998
  11. Rohde LM, Bonder BR, Triolo RJ. Exploratory study of perceived quality of life with implanted standing neuroprostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(2):265-278. PMID 22773528
  12. Triolo RJ, Bailey SN, Miller ME, et al. Longitudinal performance of a surgically implanted neuroprosthesis for lower-extremity exercise, standing, and transfers after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. May 2012;93(5):896-904. PMID 22541312
  13. Mulcahey MJ, Betz RR, Kozin SH, et al. Implantation of the Freehand System during initial rehabilitation using minimally invasive techniques. Spinal Cord. Mar 2004;42(3):146-155. PMID 15001979
  14. Mulcahey MJ, Betz RR, Smith BT, et al. Implanted functional electrical stimulation hand system in adolescents with spinal injuries: an evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Jun 1997;78(6):597-607. PMID 9196467
  15. Taylor P, Esnouf J, Hobby J. The functional impact of the Freehand System on tetraplegic hand function. Clinical Results. Spinal Cord. Nov 2002;40(11):560-566. PMID 12411963
  16. Hamid S, Hayek R. Role of electrical stimulation for rehabilitation and regeneration after spinal cord injury: an overview. Eur Spine J. Sep 2008;17(9):1256-1269. PMID 18677518
  17. Snoek GJ, MJ IJ, in ‘t Groen FA, et al. Use of the NESS handmaster to restore handfunction in tetraplegia: clinical experiences in ten patients. Spinal Cord. Apr 2000;38(4):244-249. PMID 10822395
  18. Alon G, McBride K. Persons with C5 or C6 tetraplegia achieve selected functional gains using a neuroprosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Jan 2003;84(1):119-124. PMID 12589632
  19. Alon G, McBride K, Ring H. Improving selected hand functions using a noninvasive neuroprosthesis in persons with chronic stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. Mar-Apr 2002;11(2):99-106. PMID 17903863
  20. Bethoux F, Rogers HL, Nolan KJ, et al. The effects of peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation versus ankle-foot orthosis in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. Sep 2014;28(7):688-697. PMID 24526708
  21. Kluding PM, Dunning K, O’Dell MW, et al. Foot drop stimulation versus ankle foot orthosis after stroke: 30- week outcomes. Stroke. Jun 2013;44(6):1660-1669. PMID 23640829
  22. O’Dell MW, Dunning K, Kluding P, et al. Response and prediction of improvement in gait speed from functional lectrical stimulation in persons with poststroke drop foot. PM&R. Jul 2014;6(7):587-601; quiz 601. PMID 24412265
  23. Everaert DG, Stein RB, Abrams GM, et al. Effect of a foot-drop stimulator and ankle-foot orthosis on walking performance after stroke: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. Sep 2013;27(7):579-591. PMID 23558080
  24. van Swigchem R, Vloothuis J, den Boer J, et al. Is transcutaneous peroneal stimulation beneficial to patients with chronic stroke using an ankle-foot orthosis? A within-subjects study of patients’ satisfaction, walking speed and
    physical activity level. J Rehabil Med. Feb 2010;42(2):117-121. PMID 20140406
  25. Taylor PN, Burridge JH, Dunkerley AL, et al. Clinical use of the Odstock dropped foot stimulator: its effect on the speed and effort of walking. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Dec 1999;80(12):1577-1583. PMID 10597809
  26. Stein RB, Everaert DG, Thompson AK, et al. Long-term therapeutic and orthotic effects of a foot drop stimulator on walking performance in progressive and nonprogressive neurological disorders. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. Feb 2010;24(2):152-167. PMID 19846759
  27. Barrett CL, Mann GE, Taylor PN, et al. A randomized trial to investigate the effects of functional electrical stimulation and therapeutic exercise on walking performance for people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. Apr 2009;15(4):493-504. PMID 19282417
  28. Esnouf JE, Taylor PN, Mann GE, et al. Impact on activities of daily living using a functional electrical stimulation
    device to improve dropped foot in people with multiple sclerosis, measured by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Mult Scler. Sep 2010;16(9):1141-1147. PMID 20601398
  29. Sheffler LR, Hennessey MT, Knutson JS, et al. Neuroprosthetic effect of peroneal nerve stimulation in multiple sclerosis: a preliminary study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. Feb 2009;90(2):362-365. PMID 19236994
  30. Cauraugh JH, Naik SK, Hsu WH, et al. Children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis on gait and electrical stimulation. Clin Rehabil. Nov 2010;24(11):963-978. PMID 20685722
  31. Prosser LA, Curatalo LA, Alter KE, et al. Acceptability and potential effectiveness of a foot drop stimulator in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. Nov 2012;54(11):1044-1049. PMID 22924431
  32. Meilahn JR. Tolerability and Effectiveness of a Neuroprosthesis for the Treatment of Footdrop in Pediatric Patients With Hemiparetic Cerebral Palsy. PM R. Jan 9 2013. PMID 23313040
  33. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Functional electrical stimulation for drop foot of central neurological origin (IPG278). 2009; http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/IPG278Guidance.pdf. Accessed December 9, 2014
  34. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Coverage Determination for neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) (160.12). http://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncddetails. aspx?NCDId=175&ncdver=2&DocID=160.12&ncd_id=160.12&ncd_version=2&basket=ncd%2525. Accessed December 9, 2014.