Dataset Information

The Long-Term Maintenance of Upper Limb Motor Improvements Following Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Rehabilitation in People with Stroke: A Systematic Review of Randomized Sham-Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in the upper limb (UL) motor rehabilitation of stroke has been widely studied. However, the long-term maintenance of its improvements has not yet been proven.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE/Pubmed, Web of Science, PEDRo, and Scopus databases from inception to April 2021. Randomized controlled trials were included if they performed a tDCS intervention combined with UL rehabilitation in stroke patients, performed several sessions (five or more), and assessed long-term results (at least three-month follow-up). Risk of bias and methodological quality were evaluated with the Cochrane RoB-2 and the Oxford quality scoring system.

Results

Nine studies were included, showing a high methodological quality. Findings regarding UL were categorized into (1) functionality, (2) strength, (3) spasticity. All the studies that showed significant improvements retained them in the long term. Baseline functionality may be a limiting factor in achieving motor improvements, but not in sustaining them over the long term.

Conclusion

It seems that the improvements achieved during the application of tDCS combined with UL motor rehabilitation in stroke were preserved until the follow-up time (from 3 months to 1 year). Further studies are needed to clarify the long-term effects of tDCS.

SUBMITTER: Navarro-Lopez V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8347930 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany patients do not fully regain motor function after ischemic stroke. Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) targeting the motor cortex may improve motor outcome as an add-on intervention to physical rehabilitation. However, beneficial effects on motor function vary largely among patients within and across TDCS trials. In addition to a large heterogeneity of study designs, this variability may be caused by the fact that TDCS was given as a one-size-fits-all protocol without accounting for anatomical differences between subjects. The efficacy and consistency of TDCS might be improved by a patient-tailored design that ensures precise targeting of a physiologically relevant area with an appropriate current strength.MethodsIn a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled trial, patients with subacute ischemic stroke and residual upper-extremity paresis will receive two times 20 min of focal TDCS of ipsilesional primary motor hand area (M1-HAND) during supervised rehabilitation training three times weekly for 4 weeks. Anticipated 60 patients will be randomly assigned to active or sham TDCS of ipsilesional M1-HAND, using a central anode and four equidistant cathodes. The placement of the electrode grid on the scalp and current strength at each cathode will be personalized based on individual electrical field models to induce an electrical current of 0.2 V/m in the cortical target region resulting in current strengths between 1 and 4 mA. Primary endpoint will be the difference in change of Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score between active TDCS and sham at the end of the intervention. Exploratory endpoints will include UE-FMA at 12 weeks. Effects of TDCS on motor network connectivity and interhemispheric inhibition will be assessed with functional MRI and transcranial magnetic stimulation.DiscussionThe study will show the feasibility and test the efficacy of personalized, multi-electrode anodal TDCS of M1-HAND in patients with subacute stroke patients with upper-extremity paresis. Concurrent multimodal brain mapping will shed light into the mechanisms of action of therapeutic personalized TDCS of M1-HAND. Together, the results from this trial may inform future personalized TDCS studies in patients with focal neurological deficits after stroke.

Project description:Introduction: Conventional transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) may improve motor learning in children. Mechanisms are not understood. Neuronavigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can produce individualised maps of primary motor cortex (M1) topography. We aimed to determine the effects of tDCS- and HD-tDCS-enhanced motor learning on motor maps. Methods: Typically developing children aged 12-18 years were randomised to right M1 anodal tDCS, HD-tDCS, or Sham during training of their left-hand on the Purdue Pegboard Task (PPT) over 5 days. Bilateral motor mapping was performed at baseline (pre), day 5 (post), and 6-weeks retention time (RT). Primary muscle was the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) with secondary muscles of abductor pollicis brevis (APB) and adductor digiti minimi (ADM). Primary mapping outcomes were volume (mm2/mV) and area (mm2). Secondary outcomes were centre of gravity (COG, mm) and hotspot magnitude (mV). Linear mixed-effects modelling was employed to investigate effects of time and stimulation type (tDCS, HD-tDCS, Sham) on motor map characteristics. Results: Twenty-four right-handed participants (median age 15.5 years, 52% female) completed the study with no serious adverse events or dropouts. Quality maps could not be obtained in two participants. No effect of time or group were observed on map area or volume. LFDI COG (mm) differed in the medial-lateral plane (x-axis) between tDCS and Sham (p = 0.038) from pre-to-post mapping sessions. Shifts in map COG were also observed for secondary left-hand muscles. Map metrics did not correlate with behavioural changes. Conclusion: Robotic TMS mapping can safely assess motor cortex neurophysiology in children undergoing motor learning and neuromodulation interventions. Large effects on map area and volume were not observed while changes in COG may occur. Larger controlled studies are required to understand the role of motor maps in interventional neuroplasticity in children.

Project description:BackgroundThe recovery of upper extremity motor impairment after stroke remains a challenging task. The clinical effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), which is believed to aid in the recovery process, is still uncertain.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in Medline (Ovid), Cochrane and Embase electronic databases from March 28, 2014, to March 28, 2023. The inclusion criteria consisted of randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of rTMS on the recovery of upper limb motor impairment among stroke patients. Various measurements, including the Fugl Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity Scale (FMA-UE), Brunnstrom recovery stage, Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Barthel index, were evaluated both before and after the intervention.ResultsNineteen articles with 865 patients were included. When considering only the rTMS parameters, both inhibitory and excitatory rTMS improved FMA-UE (MD = 1.87, 95% CI = [0.88]-[2.86], p < 0.001) and Barthel index (MD = 9.73, 95% CI = [4.57]-[14.89], p < 0.001). When considering only the severity of upper limb hemiplegia, both less severe (MD = 1.56, 95% CI = [0.64]-[2.49], p < 0.001) and severe (MD = 2.05, 95% CI = [1.09]-[3.00], p < 0.001) hemiplegia benefited from rTMS based on FMA-UE. However, when considering the rTMS parameters, severity of hemiplegia and stroke stages simultaneously, inhibitory rTMS was found to be significantly effective for less severe hemiplegia in the acute and subacute phases (MD = 4.55, 95% CI = [2.49]-[6.60], p < 0.001), but not in the chronic phase based on FMA-UE. For severe hemiplegia, inhibitory rTMS was not significantly effective in the acute and subacute phases, but significantly effective in the chronic phase (MD = 2.10, 95% CI = [0.75]-[3.45], p = 0.002) based on FMA-UE. Excitatory rTMS was found to be significantly effective for less severe hemiplegia in the acute and subacute phases (MD = 1.93, 95% CI = [0.58]-[3.28], p = 0.005) based on FMA-UE. The improvements in Brunnstrom recovery stage and ARAT need further research.ConclusionThe effectiveness of rTMS depends on its parameters, severity of hemiplegia, and stroke stages. It is important to consider all these factors together, as any single grouping method is incomplete.