Effectiveness of a combined transcranial direct current stimulation and virtual reality-based intervention on upper limb function in chronic individuals post-stroke with persistent severe hemiparesis: a randomized controlled trial.
Eye-tracking
Hemiparesis
Stroke
Surface electromyography
Transcranial direct current stimulation
Virtual reality
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2021
01 07 2021
Historique:
received:
14
09
2020
accepted:
09
06
2021
entrez:
2
7
2021
pubmed:
3
7
2021
medline:
26
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Functional impairments derived from the non-use of severely affected upper limb after stroke have been proposed to be mitigated by action observation and imagination-based techniques, whose effectiveness is enhanced when combined with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Preliminary studies in mildly impaired individuals in the acute phase post-stroke show intensified effects when action is facilitated by tDCS and mediated by virtual reality (VR) but the effectiveness in cases of severe impairment and chronic stroke is unknown. This study investigated the effectiveness of a combined tDCS and VR-based intervention in the sensorimotor function of chronic individuals post-stroke with persistent severe hemiparesis compared to conventional physical therapy. Twenty-nine participants were randomized into an experimental group, who received 30 minutes of the combined tDCS and VR-based therapy and 30 minutes of conventional physical therapy, or a control group, who exclusively received conventional physical therapy focusing on passive and active assistive range of motion exercises. The sensorimotor function of all participants was assessed before and after 25 one-hour sessions, administered three to five times a week, using the upper extremity subscale of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, the time and ability subscales of the Wolf Motor Function Test, and the Nottingham Sensory Assessment. A clinically meaningful improvement of the upper limb motor function was consistently revealed in all motor measures after the experimental intervention, but not after conventional physical therapy. Similar limited effects were detected in the sensory function in both groups. The combined tDCS and VR-based paradigm provided not only greater but also clinically meaningful improvement in the motor function (and similar sensory effects) in comparison to conventional physical therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Functional impairments derived from the non-use of severely affected upper limb after stroke have been proposed to be mitigated by action observation and imagination-based techniques, whose effectiveness is enhanced when combined with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Preliminary studies in mildly impaired individuals in the acute phase post-stroke show intensified effects when action is facilitated by tDCS and mediated by virtual reality (VR) but the effectiveness in cases of severe impairment and chronic stroke is unknown. This study investigated the effectiveness of a combined tDCS and VR-based intervention in the sensorimotor function of chronic individuals post-stroke with persistent severe hemiparesis compared to conventional physical therapy.
METHODS
Twenty-nine participants were randomized into an experimental group, who received 30 minutes of the combined tDCS and VR-based therapy and 30 minutes of conventional physical therapy, or a control group, who exclusively received conventional physical therapy focusing on passive and active assistive range of motion exercises. The sensorimotor function of all participants was assessed before and after 25 one-hour sessions, administered three to five times a week, using the upper extremity subscale of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, the time and ability subscales of the Wolf Motor Function Test, and the Nottingham Sensory Assessment.
RESULTS
A clinically meaningful improvement of the upper limb motor function was consistently revealed in all motor measures after the experimental intervention, but not after conventional physical therapy. Similar limited effects were detected in the sensory function in both groups.
CONCLUSION
The combined tDCS and VR-based paradigm provided not only greater but also clinically meaningful improvement in the motor function (and similar sensory effects) in comparison to conventional physical therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34210347
doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00896-2
pii: 10.1186/s12984-021-00896-2
pmc: PMC8252292
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
108Références
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016 Jun;52(3):271-8
pubmed: 26923644
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Jan 09;6:343
pubmed: 23316151
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2010 Jun 11;7:27
pubmed: 20540721
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Mar;98(3):456-462
pubmed: 27519928
NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;34(3):437-46
pubmed: 24473248
Brain. 2005 Mar;128(Pt 3):490-9
pubmed: 15634731
Brain Stimul. 2013 Jul;6(4):690-5
pubmed: 23415938
Stroke. 1999 Aug;30(8):1510-6
pubmed: 10436092
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Aug 18;11:124
pubmed: 25135003
Neuroreport. 2000 Apr 27;11(6):1237-41
pubmed: 10817599
J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98
pubmed: 1202204
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010 Sep;46(3):389-99
pubmed: 20927005
J Med Syst. 2018 Apr 2;42(5):87
pubmed: 29611142
Brain Stimul. 2008 Jan;1(1):60-6
pubmed: 20633369
Clin Rehabil. 2012 Apr;26(4):291-313
pubmed: 22023891
Neurology. 2010 Dec 14;75(24):2176-84
pubmed: 21068427
Int J Stroke. 2015 Apr;10(3):306-16
pubmed: 24148111
Stroke. 2002 Jul;33(7):1840-4
pubmed: 12105363
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Oct;27(8):732-41
pubmed: 23774125
Neuroradiology. 2013 Jul;55(7):913-25
pubmed: 23619700
Disabil Rehabil. 1999 Aug;21(8):372-7
pubmed: 10503978
J Rehabil Med. 2010 Jul;42(7):694-6
pubmed: 20603702
J Neurophysiol. 2015 Apr 1;113(7):2383-9
pubmed: 25632079
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009 Feb;24(2):122-34
pubmed: 19042063
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2004 Dec;18(4):230-49
pubmed: 15537994
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Nov 12;(11):CD010820
pubmed: 25387001
Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Feb;20(1):21-53
pubmed: 23132605
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Mar;96(3 Suppl):S79-87
pubmed: 25721551
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2005 Summer;12(3):58-65
pubmed: 16110428
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1987 Jun;50(6):714-9
pubmed: 3612152
Clin Neurophysiol. 2016 Jan;127(1):946-955
pubmed: 25998205
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 May 11;13(1):45
pubmed: 27169462
Clin Rehabil. 2005 Jun;19(4):404-11
pubmed: 15929509
J Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Jun;27(6):1681-3
pubmed: 26180297
Biomed Res Int. 2019 Jun 18;2019:7595639
pubmed: 31317037
Keio J Med. 2011;60(4):114-8
pubmed: 22200635
PM R. 2018 Nov;10(11):1261-1270
pubmed: 30503233
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 May;101(5):885-896
pubmed: 31821799
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007 Jul-Aug;21(4):315-26
pubmed: 17353460
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006 Jun;20(2):268-77
pubmed: 16679504
Stroke. 2001 Jul;32(7):1635-9
pubmed: 11441212
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Jun;82(6):750-5
pubmed: 11387578
Brain Stimul. 2016 Jan-Feb;9(1):16-26
pubmed: 26433609
Eur J Neurosci. 2016 Jan;43(1):113-9
pubmed: 26540137
Disabil Rehabil. 2007 Jul 15;29(13):981-9
pubmed: 17612983
J Neurophysiol. 2017 Aug 1;118(2):778-781
pubmed: 28515288
Acta Neurol Scand. 2012 Oct;126(4):238-47
pubmed: 22587653
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 May;29(4):349-61
pubmed: 25160567
Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407-15
pubmed: 2691207
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Jun;94(6):1023-30
pubmed: 23419791
Brain Inj. 2018;32(3):303-309
pubmed: 29278927
Eur J Neurosci. 2013 May;37(9):1441-7
pubmed: 23414211
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009 Jul-Aug;16(4):237-53
pubmed: 19740730
Phys Ther. 2012 Jun;92(6):791-8
pubmed: 22282773
Brain Stimul. 2008 Jul;1(3):164-82
pubmed: 20633383
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Nov-Dec;22(6):737-44
pubmed: 18645189
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Mar;95(3):431-8
pubmed: 24239790
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017 Aug;12(6):551-559
pubmed: 27677678
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015 Sep;58(4):220-224
pubmed: 26272418
Brain. 2003 Apr;126(Pt 4):866-72
pubmed: 12615644
Neuropsychologia. 2007 Mar 14;45(5):1101-7
pubmed: 17101158
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2014 Nov;1(11):891-9
pubmed: 25540803
Front Neural Circuits. 2016 Jul 27;10:56
pubmed: 27512367
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Oct;89(10):2003-10
pubmed: 18929030
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 20;11:CD008349
pubmed: 29156493
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31
pubmed: 1135616
Neuroimage. 1997 Oct;6(3):201-8
pubmed: 9344824
Brain Stimul. 2019 May - Jun;12(3):668-673
pubmed: 30639235
Phys Ther. 2009 Aug;89(8):840-50
pubmed: 19556333
Brain Imaging Behav. 2017 Apr;11(2):565-576
pubmed: 27011016
J Pain. 2013 Jan;14(1):3-13
pubmed: 23158879
Front Neurosci. 2016 Nov 15;10:518
pubmed: 27895550
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008 Apr;29(4):632-41
pubmed: 18339720
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jun;23(5):429-34
pubmed: 19289487
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Nov 19;7:790
pubmed: 24312044
J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2007;114(10):1265-78
pubmed: 17579805
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Aug;85(8):1377-81
pubmed: 15295770
Exp Brain Res. 2006 Jan;168(1-2):157-64
pubmed: 16078024
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016 May;30(4):339-48
pubmed: 26180053
Stroke. 2011 Feb;42(2):427-32
pubmed: 21164120
Eur J Neurosci. 2013 Mar;37(5):786-94
pubmed: 23279569
Eura Medicophys. 2006 Sep;42(3):241-56
pubmed: 17039223
Neurologia. 2012 May;27(4):216-24
pubmed: 21893370
J Hand Ther. 2013 Apr-Jun;26(2):162-70; quiz 171
pubmed: 22964028
Ann Rehabil Med. 2016 Jun;40(3):420-31
pubmed: 27446778
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 Apr;75(4):394-8
pubmed: 8172497
Brain Stimul. 2019 Jul - Aug;12(4):1027-1040
pubmed: 30894281