Bernadette T Gillick1, Tim Feyma2, Jeremiah Menk3, Michelle Usset4, Amy Vaith5, Teddi Jean Wood6, Rebecca Worthington7, Linda E Krach8. 1. B.T. Gillick, PT, MSPT, PhD, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, MMC 388, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (USA). gillick@umn.edu. 2. T. Feyma, MD, Pediatric Neurology, Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare, St Paul, Minnesota. 3. J. Menk, MS, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4. M. Usset, DPT, Program in Physical Therapy, University of Minnesota. 5. A. Vaith, DPT, Program in Physical Therapy, University of Minnesota. 6. T.J. Wood, DPT, Program in Physical Therapy, University of Minnesota. 7. R. Worthington, DPT, Program in Physical Therapy, University of Minnesota. 8. L.E. Krach, MD, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a form of noninvasive brain stimulation that has shown improved adult stroke outcomes. Applying tDCS in children with congenital hemiparesis has not yet been explored. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to explore the safety and feasibility of single-sessiontDCS through an adverse events profile and symptom assessment within a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled preliminary study in children with congenital hemiparesis. A secondary objective was to assess the stability of hand and cognitive function. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled pretest/posttest/follow-up study was conducted. SETTING: The study was conducted in a university pediatric research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen children, ages 7 to 18 years, with congenital hemiparesis participated. MEASUREMENTS: Adverse events/safety assessment and hand function were measured. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group, with safety and functional assessments at pretest, at posttest on the same day, and at a 1-week follow-up session. An intervention of 10 minutes of 0.7 mA tDCS was applied to bilateral primary motor cortices. The tDCS intervention was considered safe if there was no individual decline of 25% or group decline of 2 standard deviations for motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and behavioral data and no report of adverse events. RESULTS: No major adverse events were found, including no seizures. Two participants did not complete the study due to lack of MEP and discomfort. For the 11 participants who completed the study, group differences in MEPs and behavioral data did not exceed 2 standard deviations in those who received the tDCS (n=5) and those in the control group (n=6). The study was completed without the need for stopping per medical monitor and biostatisticial analysis. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the study was the small sample size, with data available for 11 participants. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, tDCS appears to be safe, feasible, and well tolerated in most children with hemiparesis. Future investigations of serial sessions of tDCS in conjunction with rehabilitation in pediatric hemiparesis are indicated to explore the benefit of a synergistic approach to improving hand function.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a form of noninvasive brain stimulation that has shown improved adult stroke outcomes. Applying tDCS in children with congenital hemiparesis has not yet been explored. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to explore the safety and feasibility of single-session tDCS through an adverse events profile and symptom assessment within a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled preliminary study in children with congenital hemiparesis. A secondary objective was to assess the stability of hand and cognitive function. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled pretest/posttest/follow-up study was conducted. SETTING: The study was conducted in a university pediatric research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen children, ages 7 to 18 years, with congenital hemiparesis participated. MEASUREMENTS: Adverse events/safety assessment and hand function were measured. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group, with safety and functional assessments at pretest, at posttest on the same day, and at a 1-week follow-up session. An intervention of 10 minutes of 0.7 mA tDCS was applied to bilateral primary motor cortices. The tDCS intervention was considered safe if there was no individual decline of 25% or group decline of 2 standard deviations for motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and behavioral data and no report of adverse events. RESULTS: No major adverse events were found, including no seizures. Two participants did not complete the study due to lack of MEP and discomfort. For the 11 participants who completed the study, group differences in MEPs and behavioral data did not exceed 2 standard deviations in those who received the tDCS (n=5) and those in the control group (n=6). The study was completed without the need for stopping per medical monitor and biostatisticial analysis. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the study was the small sample size, with data available for 11 participants. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, tDCS appears to be safe, feasible, and well tolerated in most children with hemiparesis. Future investigations of serial sessions of tDCS in conjunction with rehabilitation in pediatric hemiparesis are indicated to explore the benefit of a synergistic approach to improving hand function.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Laura Mordillo-Mateos; Laura Turpin-Fenoll; Jorge Millán-Pascual; Natalia Núñez-Pérez; Ivan Panyavin; José Maria Gómez-Argüelles; Enrique Botia-Paniagua; Guglielmo Foffani; Nicolas Lang; Antonio Oliviero Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: D J Oeffinger; C M Tylkowski; M K Rayens; R F Davis; G E Gorton; J D'Astous; D E Nicholson; D L Damiano; M F Abel; A M Bagley; J Luan Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: A Antal; I Alekseichuk; M Bikson; J Brockmöller; A R Brunoni; R Chen; L G Cohen; G Dowthwaite; J Ellrich; A Flöel; F Fregni; M S George; R Hamilton; J Haueisen; C S Herrmann; F C Hummel; J P Lefaucheur; D Liebetanz; C K Loo; C D McCaig; C Miniussi; P C Miranda; V Moliadze; M A Nitsche; R Nowak; F Padberg; A Pascual-Leone; W Poppendieck; A Priori; S Rossi; P M Rossini; J Rothwell; M A Rueger; G Ruffini; K Schellhorn; H R Siebner; Y Ugawa; A Wexler; U Ziemann; M Hallett; W Paulus Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Maíra C Lixandrão; James W Stinear; Tonya Rich; Chao-Ying Chen; Tim Feyma; Gregg D Meekins; Bernadette T Gillick Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Marom Bikson; Pnina Grossman; Chris Thomas; Adantchede Louis Zannou; Jimmy Jiang; Tatheer Adnan; Antonios P Mourdoukoutas; Greg Kronberg; Dennis Truong; Paulo Boggio; André R Brunoni; Leigh Charvet; Felipe Fregni; Brita Fritsch; Bernadette Gillick; Roy H Hamilton; Benjamin M Hampstead; Ryan Jankord; Adam Kirton; Helena Knotkova; David Liebetanz; Anli Liu; Colleen Loo; Michael A Nitsche; Janine Reis; Jessica D Richardson; Alexander Rotenberg; Peter E Turkeltaub; Adam J Woods Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 8.955