Combined Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Robot-Assisted Arm Training in Subacute Stroke Patients: An Exploratory, Randomized Multicenter Trial

被引:189
|
作者
Hesse, Stefan [1 ]
Waldner, Andreas [2 ]
Mehrholz, Jan [3 ]
Tomelleri, Christopher [2 ]
Pohl, Michael [3 ]
Werner, Cordula
机构
[1] Charite, Dept Neurol Rehabil, D-13507 Berlin, Germany
[2] Villa Melitta, Neurol Rehabil, Bolzano, Italy
[3] Klin Bavaria, Kreischa, Germany
关键词
neuroplasticty; stroke rehabilitation; transcranial direct current stimulation; robotic training; upper extremity; NONINVASIVE CORTICAL STIMULATION; BRAIN-STIMULATION; MOTOR FUNCTION; FUNCTIONAL RECOVERY; MAGNETIC STIMULATION; EXCITABILITY; IMPROVES; THERAPY; CORTEX; POLARIZATION;
D O I
10.1177/1545968311413906
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. No rehabilitation intervention has effectively improved functional use of the arm and hand in patients with severe upper limb paresis after stroke. Pilot studies suggest the potential for transcranial direct current stimulation and bilateral robotic training to enhance gains. Objective. In a double-blind, randomized trial the combination of these interventions was tested. Methods. This study randomized 96 patients with an ischemic supratentorial lesion of 3 to 8 weeks' duration with severe impairment of motor control with a Fugl-Meyer score (FMS) for the upper limb < 18 into 3 groups. For 6 weeks, group A received anodal stimulation of the lesioned hemisphere, group B received cathodal stimulation of the nonlesioned side for 20 minutes at 2.0 mA, and group C received sham stimulation. The electrodes were placed over the hand area and above the contralateral orbit. Contemporaneously, the subjects practiced 400 repetitions each of 2 different bilateral movements on a robotic assistive device. Results. The groups were matched at onset. The FMS improved in all patients at 6 weeks (P < .001). No between-group differences were found; initial versus finish FMS scores were 7.8 +/- 3.8 versus 19.1 +/- 14.4 in group A, 7.9 +/- 3.4 versus 18.8 +/- 10.5 in group B, and 8.2 +/- 4.4 versus 19.2 +/- 15.0 in group C. No significant changes between groups were present at 3 months. Conclusions. Neither anodal nor cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation enhanced the effect of bilateral arm training in this exploratory trial of patients with cortical involvement and severe weakness. Unilateral hand training and upregulation of the nonlesioned hemisphere might also be tried in this population.
引用
收藏
页码:838 / 846
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted arm training in subacute stroke patients: A pilot study
    Hesse, S.
    Werner, C.
    Schonhardt, E. M.
    Bardeleben, A.
    Jenrich, W.
    Kirker, S. G. B.
    [J]. RESTORATIVE NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2007, 25 (01) : 9 - 15
  • [2] Combined transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and robot-assisted arm training in patients with stroke: a systematic review
    Fonte, Cristina
    Varalta, Valentina
    Rocco, Arianna
    Munari, Daniele
    Filippetti, Mirko
    Evangelista, Elisa
    Modenese, Angela
    Smania, Nicola
    Picelli, Alessandro
    [J]. RESTORATIVE NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2021, 39 (06) : 435 - 446
  • [3] Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Combined With Wrist Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation on Motor Recovery in Subacute Stroke Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Mazzoleni, Stefano
    Vi-Do Tran
    Dario, Paolo
    Posteraro, Federico
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL SYSTEMS AND REHABILITATION ENGINEERING, 2019, 27 (07) : 1458 - 1466
  • [4] Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Wrist Robot-Assisted Integrated Treatment on Subacute Stroke Patients: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial
    Mazzoleni, Stefano
    Tran, Vi
    Iardella, Laura
    Falchi, Elisa
    Dario, Paolo
    Posteraro, Federico
    [J]. CONVERGING CLINICAL AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH ON NEUROREHABILITATION III, 2019, 21 : 518 - 522
  • [5] Effects of combined transcranial direct current stimulation and wrist robot-assisted therapy in subacute stroke patients: preliminary results
    Mazzoleni, Stefano
    Dario, Paolo
    Posteraro, Federico
    Iardella, Laura
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE/RAS-EMBS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON REHABILITATION ROBOTICS (ICORR 2015), 2015, : 217 - 222
  • [6] Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted gait training in patients with chronic stroke: a preliminary comparison
    Geroin, Christian
    Picelli, Alessandro
    Munari, Daniele
    Waldner, Andreas
    Tomelleri, Christopher
    Smania, Nicola
    [J]. CLINICAL REHABILITATION, 2011, 25 (06) : 537 - 548
  • [7] Robot-assisted Arm Training in Subacute Hemiplegic Stroke Patients
    Kim, Hyun Jung
    Jo, Ye Jin
    Kim, Jun Yup
    Hong, Jun-taek
    Kim, Deog Young
    [J]. STROKE, 2020, 51
  • [8] Sensory Stimulation and Robot-Assisted Arm Training After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Egger, Marion
    Bergmann, Jeannine
    Krewer, Carmen
    Jahn, Klaus
    Mueller, Friedemann
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGIC PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2024, 48 (04): : 178 - 187
  • [9] Combined effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) on robot-assisted gait training in patients with chronic stroke: A pilot, double blind, randomized controlled trial
    Picelli, Alessandro
    Chemello, Elena
    Castellazzi, Paola
    Roncari, Laura
    Waldner, Andreas
    Saltuari, Leopold
    Smania, Nicola
    [J]. RESTORATIVE NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2015, 33 (03) : 357 - 368
  • [10] Combined effects of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on robot-assisted gait training in patients with chronic brain stroke: A pilot, single blind, randomized controlled trial
    Picelli, Alessandro
    Chemello, Elena
    Castellazzi, Paola
    Filippetti, Mirko
    Brugnera, Annalisa
    Gandolfi, Marialuisa
    Waldner, Andreas
    Saltuari, Leopold
    Smania, Nicola
    [J]. RESTORATIVE NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2018, 36 (02) : 161 - 171