PURPOSE: This pilot double-blind sham-controlled randomized trial aimed to determine if the addition of anodal tDCS on the affected hemisphere or cathodal tDCS on unaffected hemisphere to modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) would be superior to constraints therapy alone in improving upper limb function in chronic stroke patients. METHODS:Twenty-one patients with chronic stroke were randomly assigned to receive 12 sessions of either (i) anodal, (ii) cathodal or (iii) sham tDCS combined with mCIMT. Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA), motor activity log scale (MAL), and handgrip strength were analyzed before, immediately, and 1 month (follow-up) after the treatment. Minimal clinically important difference (mCID) was defined as an increase of ≥5.25 in the upper limb FMA. RESULTS: An increase in the FMA scores between the baseline and post-intervention and follow-up for active tDCS group was observed, whereas no difference was observed in the sham group. At post-intervention and follow-up, when compared with the sham group, only the anodal tDCS group achieved an improvement in the FMA scores. ANOVA showed that all groups demonstrated similar improvement over time for MAL and handgrip strength. In the active tDCS groups, 7/7 (anodal tDCS) 5/7 (cathodal tDCS) of patients experienced mCID against 3/7 in the sham group. CONCLUSION: The results support the merit of association of mCIMT with brain stimulation to augment clinical gains in rehabilitation after stroke. However, the anodal tDCS seems to have greater impact than the cathodal tDCS in increasing the mCIMT effects on motor function of chronic stroke patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: The association of mCIMT with brain stimulation improves clinical gains in rehabilitation after stroke. The improvement in motor recovery (assessed by Fugl-Meyer scale) was only observed after anodal tDCS. The modulation of damaged hemisphere demonstrated greater improvements than the modulation of unaffected hemispheres.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This pilot double-blind sham-controlled randomized trial aimed to determine if the addition of anodal tDCS on the affected hemisphere or cathodal tDCS on unaffected hemisphere to modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) would be superior to constraints therapy alone in improving upper limb function in chronic strokepatients. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with chronic stroke were randomly assigned to receive 12 sessions of either (i) anodal, (ii) cathodal or (iii) sham tDCS combined with mCIMT. Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA), motor activity log scale (MAL), and handgrip strength were analyzed before, immediately, and 1 month (follow-up) after the treatment. Minimal clinically important difference (mCID) was defined as an increase of ≥5.25 in the upper limb FMA. RESULTS: An increase in the FMA scores between the baseline and post-intervention and follow-up for active tDCS group was observed, whereas no difference was observed in the sham group. At post-intervention and follow-up, when compared with the sham group, only the anodal tDCS group achieved an improvement in the FMA scores. ANOVA showed that all groups demonstrated similar improvement over time for MAL and handgrip strength. In the active tDCS groups, 7/7 (anodal tDCS) 5/7 (cathodal tDCS) of patients experienced mCID against 3/7 in the sham group. CONCLUSION: The results support the merit of association of mCIMT with brain stimulation to augment clinical gains in rehabilitation after stroke. However, the anodal tDCS seems to have greater impact than the cathodal tDCS in increasing the mCIMT effects on motor function of chronic strokepatients. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: The association of mCIMT with brain stimulation improves clinical gains in rehabilitation after stroke. The improvement in motor recovery (assessed by Fugl-Meyer scale) was only observed after anodal tDCS. The modulation of damaged hemisphere demonstrated greater improvements than the modulation of unaffected hemispheres.
Entities:
Keywords:
Constraint-induced movement therapy; interhemispheric competition; stroke; transcranial direct current stimulation; upper limb
Authors: Ashlee M Hendy; Alex Tillman; Timo Rantalainen; Makii Muthalib; Liam Johnson; Dawson J Kidgell; Daniel Wundersitz; Peter G Enticott; Wei-Peng Teo Journal: Trials Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Begonya Otal; Anirban Dutta; Águida Foerster; Oscar Ripolles; Amy Kuceyeski; Pedro C Miranda; Dylan J Edwards; Tihomir V Ilić; Michael A Nitsche; Giulio Ruffini Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 4.003