Alessandra Del Felice1, Verena Daloli2, Stefano Masiero3, Paolo Manganotti4. 1. Department of Neuroscience, Section of Rehabilitation, University of Padova, Italy. Electronic address: alessandra.delfelice@unipd.it. 2. Rehabilitation Section, Hospital of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy. 3. Department of Neuroscience, Section of Rehabilitation, University of Padova, Italy. 4. Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Trieste, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) paradigms have been implemented to treat poststroke spasticity, but discordant results have been reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the efficacy and persistence of dual tDCS (anode over affected motor cortex [M1] and cathode over contralateral M1) compared with cathodal tDCS (cathode over contralateral M1) on upper limb (UL) functional, behavioral, and neurophysiological measures in chronic poststroke individuals. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ten subjects with UL spasticity (7 men; mean 62 years; 8 ischemic stroke; years from event: 2.3 years) were enrolled in a cross-over, double-blinded study. Cathodal and dual tDCS, both preceded by 1 week of sham stimulation 1 month before real stimulation, were applied with 3 months interval. Stimulating paradigm was 20 minutes for five consecutive days in each block. Evaluations were performed before (T1), after real or sham treatment (T2), and after 1 (T3), 4 (T4), and 8 weeks (T5). Functional, behavioral, and neurophysiological tests were performed at each time. RESULTS: Both tDCS paradigms decreased spasticity, increased strength, and ameliorated behavioral scales. Cathodal tDCS was superior to dual tDCS in reducing UL distal spasticity immediately after treatment (T2: cathodal > dual: P = .023) and provided a higher and longer lasting reduction at proximal districts (T3: cathodal > dual: P = .042; T4: cathodal > dual: P = .028; T5: cathodal > dual: P = .05). These findings are supported by an H-reflex modulation (overall time effect P > .002). CONCLUSIONS:Cathodal tDCS is slightly more effective than dual tDCS in reducing distal UL spasticity in chronic poststroke subjects. A modulation of spinal inhibitory mechanisms, demonstrated by H-reflex modifications, supports this finding.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Different transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) paradigms have been implemented to treat poststroke spasticity, but discordant results have been reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the efficacy and persistence of dual tDCS (anode over affected motor cortex [M1] and cathode over contralateral M1) compared with cathodal tDCS (cathode over contralateral M1) on upper limb (UL) functional, behavioral, and neurophysiological measures in chronic poststroke individuals. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ten subjects with UL spasticity (7 men; mean 62 years; 8 ischemic stroke; years from event: 2.3 years) were enrolled in a cross-over, double-blinded study. Cathodal and dual tDCS, both preceded by 1 week of sham stimulation 1 month before real stimulation, were applied with 3 months interval. Stimulating paradigm was 20 minutes for five consecutive days in each block. Evaluations were performed before (T1), after real or sham treatment (T2), and after 1 (T3), 4 (T4), and 8 weeks (T5). Functional, behavioral, and neurophysiological tests were performed at each time. RESULTS: Both tDCS paradigms decreased spasticity, increased strength, and ameliorated behavioral scales. Cathodal tDCS was superior to dual tDCS in reducing UL distal spasticity immediately after treatment (T2: cathodal > dual: P = .023) and provided a higher and longer lasting reduction at proximal districts (T3: cathodal > dual: P = .042; T4: cathodal > dual: P = .028; T5: cathodal > dual: P = .05). These findings are supported by an H-reflex modulation (overall time effect P > .002). CONCLUSIONS: Cathodal tDCS is slightly more effective than dual tDCS in reducing distal UL spasticity in chronic poststroke subjects. A modulation of spinal inhibitory mechanisms, demonstrated by H-reflex modifications, supports this finding.
Authors: Yuan Yang; Nirvik Sinha; Runfeng Tian; Netta Gurari; Justin M Drogos; Julius P A Dewald Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Martina Coscia; Maximilian J Wessel; Ujwal Chaudary; José Del R Millán; Silvestro Micera; Adrian Guggisberg; Philippe Vuadens; John Donoghue; Niels Birbaumer; Friedhelm C Hummel Journal: Brain Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Andrés Molero-Chamizo; Ángeles Salas Sánchez; Belén Álvarez Batista; Carlos Cordero García; Rafael Andújar Barroso; G Nathzidy Rivera-Urbina; Michael A Nitsche; José R Alameda Bailén Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 5.810