OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether robot-assisted gait training combined with transcranial direct current stimulation is more effective than robot-assisted gait training alone or conventional walking rehabilitation for improving walking ability in stroke patients. DESIGN: Pilot randomized clinical trial. SETTING:Rehabilitation unit of a university hospital. SUBJECTS:Thirty patients with chronic stroke. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received ten 50-minute treatment sessions, five days a week, for two consecutive weeks. Group 1 (n = 10) underwent a robot-assisted gait training combined with transcranial direct current stimulation; group 2 (n = 10) underwent a robot-assisted gait training combined with sham transcranial direct current stimulation; group 3 (n = 10) performed overground walking exercises. MAIN MEASURES: Patients were evaluated before, immediately after and two weeks post treatment. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: six-minute walking test, 10-m walking test. RESULTS: No differences were found between groups 1 and 2 for all primary outcome measures at the after treatment and follow-up evaluations. A statistically significant improvement was found after treatment in performance on the six-minute walking test and the 10-m walking test in favour of group 1 (six-minute walking test: 205.20 ± 61.16 m; 10-m walking test: 16.20 ± 7.65 s) and group 2 (six-minute walking test: 182.5 ± 69.30 m; 10-m walking test: 17.71 ± 8.20 s) compared with group 3 (six-minute walking test: 116.30 ± 75.40 m; 10-m walking test: 26.30 ± 14.10 s). All improvements were maintained at the follow-up evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: In the present pilot study transcranial direct current stimulation had no additional effect on robot-assisted gait training in patients with chronic stroke. Larger studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether robot-assisted gait training combined with transcranial direct current stimulation is more effective than robot-assisted gait training alone or conventional walking rehabilitation for improving walking ability in strokepatients. DESIGN: Pilot randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Rehabilitation unit of a university hospital. SUBJECTS: Thirty patients with chronic stroke. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received ten 50-minute treatment sessions, five days a week, for two consecutive weeks. Group 1 (n = 10) underwent a robot-assisted gait training combined with transcranial direct current stimulation; group 2 (n = 10) underwent a robot-assisted gait training combined with sham transcranial direct current stimulation; group 3 (n = 10) performed overground walking exercises. MAIN MEASURES: Patients were evaluated before, immediately after and two weeks post treatment. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: six-minute walking test, 10-m walking test. RESULTS: No differences were found between groups 1 and 2 for all primary outcome measures at the after treatment and follow-up evaluations. A statistically significant improvement was found after treatment in performance on the six-minute walking test and the 10-m walking test in favour of group 1 (six-minute walking test: 205.20 ± 61.16 m; 10-m walking test: 16.20 ± 7.65 s) and group 2 (six-minute walking test: 182.5 ± 69.30 m; 10-m walking test: 17.71 ± 8.20 s) compared with group 3 (six-minute walking test: 116.30 ± 75.40 m; 10-m walking test: 26.30 ± 14.10 s). All improvements were maintained at the follow-up evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: In the present pilot study transcranial direct current stimulation had no additional effect on robot-assisted gait training in patients with chronic stroke. Larger studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.
Authors: Oluwole O Awosika; Marco Sandrini; Rita Volochayev; Ryan M Thompson; Nathan Fishman; Tianxia Wu; Mary Kay Floeter; Mark Hallett; Leonardo G Cohen Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Kelsey A Potter-Baker; Corin E Bonnett; Patrick Chabra; Sarah Roelle; Nicole Varnerin; David A Cunningham; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Svetlana Pundik; Adriana B Conforto; Andre G Machado; Ela B Plow Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Adrian G Guggisberg; Philipp J Koch; Friedhelm C Hummel; Cathrin M Buetefisch Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Jan Mehrholz; Simone Thomas; Cordula Werner; Joachim Kugler; Marcus Pohl; Bernhard Elsner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-10