Man moves paralyzed legs using device that stimulates spinal cord

This device, for which Mayo Clinic received permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for off-label use, sends electrical current to the spinal cord, enabling the patient to create movement.

After a three-week recovery period from surgery, the patient resumed physical therapy with stimulation settings adjusted to enable movements. In the first two weeks, he intentionally was able to:

Control his muscles while lying on his side, resulting in leg movements
Make steplike motions while lying on his side and standing with partial support
Stand independently using his arms on support bars for balanceIntentional, or volitional, movement means the patient's brain is sending a signal to motor neurons in his spinal cord to move his legs purposefully.
"This has really set the tone for our post-surgical rehabilitation - trying to use that function the patient recovered to drive even more return of abilities," says Kristin Zhao, Ph.D., co-principal investigator and director of Mayo Clinic's Assistive and Restorative Technology Laboratory.

The Mayo researchers worked closely with the team of V. Reggie Edgerton, Ph.D., at UCLA on this study, which replicates earlier research done at the University of Louisville. The Mayo study marks the first time a patient intentionally controlled previously paralyzed functions within the first two weeks of stimulation.
The data suggest that people with discomplete spinal cord injuries may be candidates for epidural stimulation therapy. However, more research is needed into how a discomplete injury contributes to recovering function.
Teams from Mayo Clinic's departments of Neurosurgery and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and the Division of Engineering collaborated on this project.

"While these are early results, it speaks to how Mayo Clinic researchers relentlessly pursue discoveries and innovative solutions that address the unmet needs of patients," says Gregory Gores, M.D., executive dean of research, Mayo Clinic. "These teams highlight Mayo Clinic's unique culture of collaboration, which brings together scientists and physician experts who work side by side to accelerate scientific discoveries into critical advances for patient care."

Well hopefully we will see this device in wide deployment in 5 years or so.

Who am I kidding, it's only going to be available in America to people with the best healthcare plans.

>>128167
yeah doctors should work for free this is fucked up :(

>>128169
Free =/= Inexpensive =/= Cheap

>>128167
Initially yes, but that is the same with most new technology. New products always have a higher asking value then after a decade on the market. Look at cell phones, flat screen TV, 4k TV, etc.

The irony is that the rich are paying more upfront for early access which helps subsidize the cost for lower income individuals.

>>128227
i dunno, something seems off about that. really, a device that allows a paralyzed person to walk is not on the same level as a cell phone, flat screen TV, 4k TV, all of which are entertainment or luxury devices. who really cares if you think you "need" a 4k TV, but someone who is paralyzed has a legitimate need for a device such as this. And furthermore, even if something like this goes down to around $500-1,000 after a few years (or a decade? that's a little much to ask a paralyzed person to wait while rich paralyzed people get to walk again) that's still out of reach for many, if not most, Americans. I think it's important to consider the quality of life that factors into this, that this thing is a necessity, that it would allow disabled persons to work again and support themselves. It's not like it's a new phone or a new game or something, it's a device that could let a person fucking walk again, that's kind of a big deal and in my opinion not something that can be ethically locked off behind a paywall.

>>128167
> healthcare
> America

Not in my 2022

Just so you all know he can move his limb but can't feel anything.

>>128327
The device is not essential for life in the strict sense (people will not die without it) and therefore it is very much a luxury item. Also it is worth noting that you are putting way too much emphasis on this being a panacea and the person will be able to return to their work as if they were never injured after treatment. This is not the case. These people will likely still require a cane at the very least to walk and will still be unable to perform major tasks. As of right now, it is very much a quality of life/novelty item. Once new advancements occur and it actually does what you seem to think I would be more supportive of some kind of subsidy, but as it stands right now I cannot agree with it. Also insurance companies exist and this technology would most certainly be covered under even the most basic plans if it worked as you implied it does.

I could also go on about how paralysis (or spinal cord injuries) are an extremely complicated issue and that this is highly unlikely to work for all patients, but that is a topic for another day.