David A Cunningham1,2, Nicole Varnerin1, Andre Machado3, Corin Bonnett1, Daniel Janini1, Sarah Roelle1, Kelsey Potter-Baker1, Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian1, Xiaofeng Wang4, Guang Yue5, Ela B Plow1,3,6. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Inst., Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. School of Biomedical Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA. 3. Center for Neurological Restoration, Neurosurgery, Neurological Inst., Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA. 5. Human Performance & Engineering Laboratory, Kessler Foundation Research Center, West Orange, NJ, USA. 6. Department of Physical Medicine & Rehab, Neurological Inst., Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate, in a proof-of-concept study, whether potentiating ipsilesional higher motor areas (premotor cortex and supplementary motor area) augments and accelerates recovery associated with constraint induced movement. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blinded pilot clinical study, 12 patients with chronic stroke were assigned to receive anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (n = 6) or sham (n = 6) to the ipsilesional higher motor areas during constraint-induced movement therapy. We assessed functional and neurophysiologic outcomes before and after 5 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: Only patients receiving tDCS demonstrated gains in function and dexterity. Gains were accompanied by an increase in excitability of the contralesional rather than the ipsilesional hemisphere. CONCLUSIONS: Our proof-of-concept study provides early evidence that stimulating higher motor areas can help recruit the contralesional hemisphere in an adaptive role in cases of greater ipsilesional injury. Whether this early evidence of promise translates to remarkable gains in functional recovery compared to existing approaches of stimulation remains to be confirmed in large-scale clinical studies that can reasonably dissociate stimulation of higher motor areas from that of the traditional primary motor cortices.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To demonstrate, in a proof-of-concept study, whether potentiating ipsilesional higher motor areas (premotor cortex and supplementary motor area) augments and accelerates recovery associated with constraint induced movement. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blinded pilot clinical study, 12 patients with chronic stroke were assigned to receive anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (n = 6) or sham (n = 6) to the ipsilesional higher motor areas during constraint-induced movement therapy. We assessed functional and neurophysiologic outcomes before and after 5 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: Only patients receiving tDCS demonstrated gains in function and dexterity. Gains were accompanied by an increase in excitability of the contralesional rather than the ipsilesional hemisphere. CONCLUSIONS: Our proof-of-concept study provides early evidence that stimulating higher motor areas can help recruit the contralesional hemisphere in an adaptive role in cases of greater ipsilesional injury. Whether this early evidence of promise translates to remarkable gains in functional recovery compared to existing approaches of stimulation remains to be confirmed in large-scale clinical studies that can reasonably dissociate stimulation of higher motor areas from that of the traditional primary motor cortices.
Entities:
Keywords:
Stroke rehabilitation; constraint-induced movement therapy; motor recovery; premotor cortex; transcranial direct current stimulation; transcranial magnetic stimulation
Authors: Ela B Plow; Souzana N Obretenova; Felipe Fregni; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Lotfi B Merabet Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Ela B Plow; Souzana N Obretenova; Mark A Halko; Sigrid Kenkel; Mary Lou Jackson; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Lotfi B Merabet Journal: PM R Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Cathy M Stinear; P Alan Barber; Peter R Smale; James P Coxon; Melanie K Fleming; Winston D Byblow Journal: Brain Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: S C Cramer; G Nelles; R R Benson; J D Kaplan; R A Parker; K K Kwong; D N Kennedy; S P Finklestein; B R Rosen Journal: Stroke Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: James R Carey; Chad D Evans; David C Anderson; Ela Bhatt; Ashima Nagpal; Teresa J Kimberley; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2007-09-17 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: David A Cunningham; Andre Machado; Daniel Janini; Nicole Varnerin; Corin Bonnett; Guang Yue; Stephen Jones; Mark Lowe; Erik Beall; Ken Sakaie; Ela B Plow Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Yin-Liang Lin; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; David A Cunningham; Manshi Li; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; John Lee; Stephen Jones; Ken Sakaie; Xiaofeng Wang; Andre G Machado; Ela B Plow Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Andre G Machado; Adriana B Conforto; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; David A Cunningham; Nicole M Varnerin; Xiaofeng Wang; Ken Sakaie; Ela B Plow Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Kelsey A Potter-Baker; Daniel P Janini; Yin-Liang Lin; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; David A Cunningham; Nicole M Varnerin; Patrick Chabra; Kevin L Kilgore; Mary Ann Richmond; Frederick S Frost; Ela B Plow Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: David A Cunningham; Jayme S Knutson; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; Andre G Machado; Ela B Plow Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Andrada D Neacsiu; Lysianne Beynel; John P Powers; Steven T Szabo; Lawrence G Appelbaum; Sarah H Lisanby; Kevin S LaBar Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 17.659