http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00394/full?
- 1Division of Occupational Therapy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
- 2Better Rehabilitation and Assessment for Improved Neuro-recovery (B.R.A.I.N.) Laboratory, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
- 3Laboratory for Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation and Human Motor Control, The Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY, USA
- 4Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medical College, White Plains, NY, USA
- 5Burke Rehabilitation Hospital, White Plains, NY, USA
Stroke remains a leading cause of disability worldwide,
with a majority of survivors experiencing long term decrements in motor
function that severely undermine quality of life. While many treatment
approaches and adjunctive strategies exist to remediate motor
impairment, many are only efficacious or feasible for survivors with
active hand and wrist function, a population who constitute only a
minority of stroke survivors. Transcranial direct current stimulation
(tDCS), a type of non-invasive brain stimulation, has been increasingly
utilized to increase motor function following stroke as it is able to be
used with stroke survivors of varying impairment levels, is portable,
is relatively inexpensive and has few side effects and
contraindications. Accordingly, in recent years the number of studies
investigating its efficacy when utilized as an adjunct to motor
rehabilitation regimens has drastically increased. While many of these
trials have reported positive and promising efficacy, methodologies vary
greatly between studies, including differences in stimulation
parameters, outcome measures and the nature of physical practice. As
such, an urgent need remains, centering on the need to investigate these
methodological differences and synthesize the most current evidence
surrounding the application of tDCS for post-stroke motor
rehabilitation. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to provide a
detailed overview of the most recent tDCS literature (published
2014-2015), while highlighting these variations in methodological
approach, as well to elucidate the mechanisms associated with tDCS and
post-stroke motor re-learning and neuroplasticity.
Many stroke survivors exhibit hemiparesis, which undermines independence and quality of life (Mayo et al., 2002). Several rehabilitative approaches targeting hemiparetic limbs have been developed (Page et al., 2013a,b)
with most incorporating task-specific physical practice of the paretic
limb. These approaches attempt to exploit surviving brain tissue and,
specifically, to modulate synaptic networks and strengthen connections
subserving these networks. While such regimens demonstrate promise,
these brain processes can be difficult to modulate with a high precision
and consistency when physical practice is the singular method applied.
The therapeutic application of electrical currents to the brain has been documented for centuries (Nitsche et al., 2008),
with its use becoming more clinically-plausible through the
introduction of the electrical battery in the eighteenth century. In
subsequent decades, brain stimulation was successfully applied for a
variety of psychological disorders (Kubera et al., 2015; Xie et al., 2015), as well as pain (Ma et al., 2015).
More recently, transcranial direct current stimulation
(tDCS)—non-invasive brain stimulation administering a constant, low
current—has been used to facilitate neurophysiological (Nitsche and Paulus, 2000) and motor changes in post-stroke hemiparesis (Butler et al., 2013).
tDCS offers the additional advantage of being portable, relatively
inexpensive, and straightforward in administration. As a treatment for
targeting post-stroke motor impairments, tDCS can enhance or suppress
brain excitability with great focality and over prolonged periods, which
constitutes decided benefits over physical therapy alone.
The continued prevalence and impact of stroke-induced
hemiparesis suggests a need to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS as an
adjuvant to physical therapy for post-stroke motor rehabilitation. In
recent years, the number of studies utilizing tDCS alongside a variety
of physical rehabilitation regimens has drastically increased. While
results from these trials are promising, methodologies vary greatly in
terms of the nature of physical practice, stimulation montage and type
of outcome measures, among other important factors. There is an urgent
need to highlight these methodological differences and provide a
snapshot of the most current evidence surrounding the application of
tDCS for post-stroke motor rehabilitation. This paper provides an
overview of recent tDCS literature (published 2014-2015), with an
emphasis on methodological approach, as well a description of the
mechanisms associated with tDCS and post-stroke motor re-learning and
neuroplasticity.
No comments:
Post a Comment