Cionic Neural Sleeve MultiStim System Demonstrates Reduction in Lower Extremity Spasticity in Combination with Triggered Functional Stimulation to Improve Gait and Quality of Life

7/20/2025

Background

Spasticity is one of the most common symptoms in individuals with upper motor neuron (UMN) conditions such as stroke, multiple sclerosis (MS), spinal cord injury (SCI), and cerebral palsy (CP) 1.  It is commonly defined as a velocity-dependent involuntary resistance to stretch 2-4 which can be felt as a contraction or shortening of muscles. Depending on the severity of spasticity, it can result in tightness, reduced joint range of motion, pain, sleep issues, fatigue, or impaired mobility 5-8, and culminate in reduced quality of life 8-10. In the lower extremities, spasticity commonly affects the gastrocnemius, soleus, and knee extensor muscles 11, which can cause impaired gait and increase fall incidence 12,13. 

The prevalence of spasticity varies across diseases. Spasticity presents in up to 97% of stroke survivors with moderate to severe motor deficits 14, contributes to disability in up to 84% of individuals with MS 7, 15-17, and is present in 80% of individuals with CP 18 and up to 93% of individuals with spinal cord injuries 19. Medical management of spasticity and its related symptoms often continues throughout the lifespan, and as one study of stroke survivors has demonstrated, there is a 4x increase in direct costs to the healthcare system for those with spasticity compared to those without 20. Therefore, managing spasticity is a critical component of improving functional independence in individuals with UMN conditions and reducing associated healthcare costs.

In a home use trial, seven individuals with upper motor neuron conditions used the Cionic Neural Sleeve MultiStim System with functional and afferent electrical stimulation-assisted walking. Participants reported improvements in daily activities, social avoidance/anxiety, need for intervention, overall spasticity impact, and need for assistance/repositioning.

Introduction

Pharmacological treatment is currently the gold standard for spasticity management. Common prescribed options include Baclofen and other muscle relaxant, botulinum toxin, and anxiolytics 21.  While these medications can provide relief, these treatments are often associated with side effects such as drowsiness, dizziness, and muscle weakness. Such effects can interfere with a person’s activities of daily living, causing the patient to lower their dosage or discontinue treatment.  As a result, spasticity remains inadequately controlled 22.

Advances in non-invasive electrical stimulation have shown promise as an alternative and adjunct to drug-based therapy for spasticity. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation of the antagonist muscle can cause reciprocal inhibition of the spastic muscle to reduce muscle tone, while sensory (afferent) electrical stimulation can directly promote muscle relaxation 23-27 of the target muscle.  Unlike pharmacological treatments, non-invasive electrical stimulation does not incite systemic side effects and may directly address spastic muscles. Although further research is needed to establish long-term outcomes, non-invasive electrical stimulation can be a practical solution to complement or reduce reliance on medication.

Traditional functional electrical stimulation devices for gait solely address muscle activation and commonly target the tibialis anterior muscle to improve dorsiflexion and reduce foot drop during ambulation 28-31.  However, when spasticity occurs in the plantarflexors it can reduce the effectiveness of the stimulation to the dorsiflexors. Therefore, a device that is able to apply afferent and efferent stimulation to augment muscle activation and minimize spasticity may improve gait efficiency and quality.

The Cionic Neural Sleeve MultiStim System

The Cionic Neural Sleeve MultiStim system administers electrical stimulation to lower extremity muscles to address weakness, motor control issues, and spasticity during gait in individuals with UMN conditions. The Cionic Neural Sleeve MultiStim System interleaves multiple pulse trains into a single integrated stimulation pattern, or multimodal electrical stimulation (MMES), to provide continuous afferent stimulation to spastic muscles and trigger stimulation to weak and poorly controlled muscles timed to the gait cycle.

In order to achieve MMES, the Cionic Neural Sleeve utilizes a sophisticated stimulation scheduler that interleaves multiple pulse trains into a single integrated stimulation pattern (Figure 1). While the device has only one power amplifier stage, it leverages a software controlled hardware mux to direct the stimulation to any configuration of Anode and Cathode electrodes. The scheduler time slices the power amplifier stage to simultaneously stimulate different muscles with different stimulation patterns (frequency, pulse width, intensity), up to 12 independent pulse trains, in real-time.

The Cionic Neural Sleeve MultiStim System is capable of stimulating the quadriceps, hamstrings, gastrocnemius, tibialis anterior, and peroneus longus muscles. As a result, its users can achieve flexible, adaptable, and personalized stimulation for ambulation.

Figure 1: Timing diagram of three individual pulse trains with different stimulation frequencies and amplitudes.

Home Spasticity Study

In a 2-week home use trial, CIONIC assessed lower extremity spasticity in seven participants with UMN conditions who reported symptoms of leg spasticity (Table 1). At the initial evaluation, all participants had been using the Cionic Neural Sleeve to improve muscle activation during gait, and were instructed on configuring afferent stimulation on their Cionic Neural Sleeve MultiStim System. The participants were instructed to resume their previously established usage schedule using the Cionic Neural Sleeve MultiStim System for electrical stimulation assisted walking and spasticity reduction.

Table 1: Subject Characteristics

Note: CVA = cerebrovascular accident, UMN = upper motor neuron; MS = multiple sclerosis; SCI = spinal cord injury

Lower extremity spasticity was assessed using the Patient Reported Impact of Spasticity Measure (PRISM) survey. PRISM is a 41-item survey that considers the impact of spasticity in seven subscales. There are six negative impact subscales: SAA - social avoidance/anxiety, PA - psychological agitation, SE - social embarrassment, DA - daily activities, NA - need for assistance/repositioning, and NI - need for intervention 32, and a single PI - positive impact subscale. Subscale scores were determined by summing across item scores, then calculating a subscale improvement by subtracting the scores at week 2 from the scores at baseline divided by the number of questions in the scale to normalize across subscales (Figure 2). 

Figure 2: Subscale improvement for each study participant across the 6 negative impact subscales

A percentage change was calculated by subtracting the scores at survey point 2 from the scores at baseline and dividing by baseline such that a positive difference between baseline and follow up scores indicated improvement. As a result of the 2-week trial, the cohort scored symptom improvement in SE (45.83%), PA (33.33%), SAA (28.87%), NI (26.32%), DA (25.40%), and NAP (19.70%) subscales of the PRISM survey (Figure 3). The average improvement across the negative subscales was 29.92% with 0% change to the positive impact subscale.

Figure 3: Average percent change in PRISM subscale scores after 2 weeks

Conclusion

The Cionic Neural Sleeve MultiStim System is the first device to combine traditional functional stimulation with continuous afferent stimulation to to increase muscle activation and promote muscle relaxation for improved gait. Afferent and efferent stimulation was applied to all major muscle groups in the upper and lower leg in a personalized fashion.  Results of this two-week study suggest that afferent stimulation integrated with functional stimulation for gait can be used daily in the home and community environments to improve lower extremity spasticity. This study is limited by a small sample size, participants’ variable experience with the device prior to the start of the study, and the absence of a control group, which may reduce the generalizability and validity of the findings.  Further research using a randomized controlled trial design is warranted to validate these preliminary findings.

Note:  This study was completed under IRB, using the commercially available Cionic Neural Sleeve, FDA cleared K221823, modified to enable the simultaneous afferent and efferent stimulation modality.  

References

1. Dressler, D., Bhidayasiri, R., Bohlega, S., Chana, P., Chien, H. F., Chung, T. M., Colosimo, C., Ebke, M., Fedoroff, K., Frank, B., Kaji, R., Kanovsky, P., Koçer, S., Micheli, F., Orlova, O., Paus, S., Pirtosek, Z., Relja, M., Rosales, R. L., Sagástegui-Rodríguez, J. A., … Saberi, F. A. (2018). Defining spasticity: a new approach considering current movement disorders terminology and botulinum toxin therapy. Journal of neurology, 265(4), 856–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-018-8759-1 

2. Trompetto, C., Marinelli, L., Mori, L., Pelosin, E., Currà, A., Molfetta, L., & Abbruzzese, G. (2014). Pathophysiology of spasticity: Implications for neurorehabilitation. BioMed Research International, 2014, 354906. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/354906

3. Sanger, T. D., Delgado, M. R., Gaebler-Spira, D., Hallett, M., Mink, J. W., & Task Force on Childhood Motor Disorders. (2003). Classification and definition of disorders causing hypertonia in childhood. Pediatrics, 111(1), e89-97. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.111.1.e89

4. Malhotra, S., Pandyan, A. D., Day, C. R., Jones, P. W., & Hermens, H. (2009). Spasticity, an impairment that is poorly defined and poorly measured. Clinical Rehabilitation, 23(7), 651–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215508101747

5. Flachenecker, P., Henze, T., & Zettl, U. K. (2014). Spasticity in patients with multiple sclerosis—Clinical characteristics, treatment and quality of life. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 129(3), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12202

6. Patti, F., & Vila, C. (2014). Symptoms, prevalence and impact of multiple sclerosis in younger patients: A multinational survey. Neuroepidemiology, 42(4), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1159/000360423

7. Bethoux, F., & Marrie, R. A. (2016). A Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Spasticity on Daily Activities in Multiple Sclerosis. The Patient, 9(6), 537–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0173-0

8. Zettl, U. K., Henze, T., Essner, U., & Flachenecker, P. (2014). Burden of disease in multiple sclerosis patients with spasticity in Germany: Mobility improvement study (Move I). The European Journal of Health Economics: HEPAC: Health Economics in Prevention and Care, 15(9), 953–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0537-5

9. Arroyo, R., Massana, M., & Vila, C. (2013). Correlation between spasticity and quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis: The CANDLE study. The International Journal of Neuroscience, 123(12), 850–858. https://doi.org/10.3109/00207454.2013.812084

10. Svensson, J., Borg, S., & Nilsson, P. (2014). Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients with spasticity. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 129(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12139

11. Bethoux, F. (2013). Gait disorders in multiple sclerosis. Continuum, 19(4), 1007–1022. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.CON.0000433286.92596.d5

12. Gunn, H., Creanor, S., Haas, B., Marsden, J., & Freeman, J. (2014). Frequency, characteristics, and consequences of falls in multiple sclerosis: Findings from a cohort study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95(3), 538–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.08.244

13. Nilsagård, Y., Lundholm, C., Denison, E., & Gunnarsson, L.-G. (2009). Predicting accidental falls in people with multiple sclerosis—A longitudinal study. Clinical Rehabilitation, 23(3), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215508095087

14. Pundik, S., McCabe, J., Skelly, M., Tatsuoka, C., & Daly, J. J. (2019). Association of spasticity and motor dysfunction in chronic stroke. Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 62(6), 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2018.07.006

15. Thrower, B., Newsome, S. D., Hendin, B., Danese, S., Patterson, J., & Chinnapongse, R. (2024). Recognition, Description, and Variability of Spasticity in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis and Potential Barriers to Clinician-Patient Dialogue: Results From SEEN-MSS, a Large-Scale, Self-Reported Survey. International Journal of MS Care, 26(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073.2022-115

16. Barnes, M. P., Kent, R. M., Semlyen, J. K., & McMullen, K. M. (2003). Spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 17(1), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888439002250449.

17. Rizzo, M. A., Hadjimichael, O. C., Preiningerova, J., & Vollmer, T. L. (2004). Prevalence and treatment of spasticity reported by multiple sclerosis patients. Multiple Sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 10(5), 589–595. https://doi.org/10.1191/1352458504ms1085oa

18. Hägglund, G., Hollung, S. J., Ahonen, M., Andersen, G. L., Eggertsdóttir, G., Gaston, M. S., Jahnsen, R., Jeglinsky-Kankainen, I., Nordbye-Nielsen, K., Tresoldi, I., & Alriksson-Schmidt, A. I. (2021). Treatment of spasticity in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy in Northern Europe: A CP-North registry study. BMC Neurology, 21(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-021-02289-3

19. Adams, M. M., & Hicks, A. L. (2005). Spasticity after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 43(10), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101757

20. Lundström, E., Smits, A., Borg, J., & Terént, A. (2010). Four-fold increase in direct costs of stroke survivors with spasticity compared with stroke survivors without spasticity: The first year after the event. Stroke, 41(2), 319–324. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.558619

21. Marsden, J., Stevenson, V., & Jarrett, L. (2023). Treatment of spasticity. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 196, 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-98817-9.00010-7

22. Erwin, A., Gudesblatt, M., Bethoux, F., Bennett, S. E., Koelbel, S., Plunkett, R., Sadiq, S., Stevenson, V. L., Thomas, A.-M., Tornatore, C., Zaffaroni, M., & Hughes, M. (2011). Intrathecal baclofen in multiple sclerosis: Too little, too late? Multiple Sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 17(5), 623–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458510395056

23. Massey, S., Vanhoestenberghe, A., & Duffell, L. (2022). Neurophysiological and clinical outcome measures of the impact of electrical stimulation on spasticity in spinal cord injury: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, 3, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2022.1058663

24. Sillen, M. J. H., Franssen, F. M. E., Gosker, H. R., Wouters, E. F. M., & Spruit, M. A. (2013). Metabolic and structural changes in lower-limb skeletal muscle following neuromuscular electrical stimulation: A systematic review. PloS One, 8(9), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069391

25. Aydin, G., Tomruk, S., Keleş, I., Demir, S. O., & Orkun, S. (2005). Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation versus baclofen in spasticity: Clinical and electrophysiologic comparison. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 84(8), 584–592. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.phm.0000171173.86312.69

26. Oo, W. M. (2014). Efficacy of addition of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation to standardized physical therapy in subacute spinal spasticity: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95(11), 2013–2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.06.001

27. Ping Ho Chung, B., & Kam Kwan Cheng, B. (2010). Immediate effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on spasticity in patients with spinal cord injury. Clinical Rehabilitation, 24(3), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215509343235

28. Dantas, M. T. A. P., Fernani, D. C. G. L., Silva, T. D. da, Assis, I. S. A. de, Carvalho, A. C. de, Silva, S. B., Abreu, L. C. de, Barbieri, F. A., & Monteiro, C. B. de M. (2023). Gait Training with Functional Electrical Stimulation Improves Mobility in People Post-Stroke. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(9), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20095728

29. Taylor, P., Humphreys, L., & Swain, I. (2013). The long-term cost-effectiveness of the use of Functional Electrical Stimulation for the correction of dropped foot due to upper motor neuron lesion. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 45(2), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1090

30. Miller Renfrew, L., Flowers, P., Lord, A. C., Rafferty, D., McFadyen, A. K., Bowers, R., Mattison, P., & Paul, L. (2020). An exploration of the experiences and utility of functional electrical stimulation for foot drop in people with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 42(4), 510–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1501100

31. Robison, J., Gibbons, R., Achelis, D., Bent, B., Wajda, D., & Webster, R. (2024). Augmenting gait in a population exhibiting foot drop with adaptive functional electrical stimulation. Journal of Novel Physiotherapies, 14(6), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.27.22273623

32. Cook, K., Teal, C., Engebretson, J., Hart, K., Mahoney, J., Robinson-Whelen, S., & Sherwood, A. (2007). Development and validation of Patient Reported Impact of Spasticity Measure (PRISM). Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 44, 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2006.04.0036