tDCS does not enhance the effects of robot-assisted gait training in patients with subacute stroke

Control strategies used in lower limb exoskeletons for gait rehabilitation after brain injury: a systematic review and analysis of clinical effectiveness

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, there has been substantial progress in the development of robotic controllers that specify how lower-limb exoskeletons should interact with brain-injured patients. However, it is still an open question which exoskeleton control strategies can more effectively stimulate motor function recovery. In this review, we aim to complement previous literature surveys on the topic of exoskeleton control for gait rehabilitation by: (1) providing an updated structured framework of current control strategies, (2) analyzing the methodology of clinical validations used in the robotic interventions, and (3) reporting the potential relation between control strategies and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Four databases were searched using database-specific search terms from January 2000 to September 2020. We identified 1648 articles, of which 159 were included and evaluated in full-text. We included studies that clinically evaluated the effectiveness of the exoskeleton on impaired participants, and which clearly explained or referenced the implemented control strategy.

RESULTS

(1) We found that assistive control (100% of exoskeletons) that followed rule-based algorithms (72%) based on ground reaction force thresholds (63%) in conjunction with trajectory-tracking control (97%) were the most implemented control strategies. Only 14% of the exoskeletons implemented adaptive control strategies. (2) Regarding the clinical validations used in the robotic interventions, we found high variability on the experimental protocols and outcome metrics selected. (3) With high grade of evidence and a moderate number of participants (N = 19), assistive control strategies that implemented a combination of trajectory-tracking and compliant control showed the highest clinical effectiveness for acute stroke. However, they also required the longest training time. With high grade of evidence and low number of participants (N = 8), assistive control strategies that followed a threshold-based algorithm with EMG as gait detection metric and control signal provided the highest improvements with the lowest training intensities for subacute stroke. Finally, with high grade of evidence and a moderate number of participants (N = 19), assistive control strategies that implemented adaptive oscillator algorithms together with trajectory-tracking control resulted in the highest improvements with reduced training intensities for individuals with chronic stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the efforts to develop novel and more effective controllers for exoskeleton-based gait neurorehabilitation, the current level of evidence on the effectiveness of the different control strategies on clinical outcomes is still low. There is a clear lack of standardization in the experimental protocols leading to high levels of heterogeneity. Standardized comparisons among control strategies analyzing the relation between control parameters and biomechanical metrics will fill this gap to better guide future technical developments. It is still an open question whether controllers that provide an on-line adaptation of the control parameters based on key biomechanical descriptors associated to the patients' specific pathology outperform current control strategies.

Case report: A novel approach of closed-loop brain stimulation combined with robot gait training in post-stroke gait disturbance

Most post-stroke patients have long-lasting gait disturbances that reduce their daily activities. They often show impaired hip and knee joint flexion and ankle dorsiflexion of the lower limbs during the swing phase of gait, which is controlled by the corticospinal tract from the primary motor cortex (M1). Recently, we reported that gait-synchronized closed-loop brain stimulation targeting swing phase-related activity in the affected M1 can improve gait function in post-stroke patients. Subsequently, a gait-training robot (Orthobot^®) was developed that could assist lower-limb joint movements during the swing phase of gait. Therefore, we investigated whether gait-synchronized closed-loop brain stimulation combined with robot-assisted training targeting the swing phase could enhance the recovery of post-stroke gait disturbance. A 57-year-old female patient with chronic post-stroke hemiparesis underwent closed-loop brain stimulation combined with robot-assisted training for 10 min 2 years after left pons infarction. For closed-loop brain stimulation, we used transcranial oscillatory electrical current stimulation over the lesioned M1 foot area with 1.5 mA of DC offset and 0-3 mA of sine-wave formed currents triggered by the paretic heel contact to set the maximum current just before the swing phase (intervention A; two times repeated, A1 and A2). According to the N-of-1 study design, we also performed sham stimulation (intervention B) and control stimulation not targeting the swing phase (intervention C) combined with robot-assisted training in the order of A1-B-A2-C interventions. As a result, we found larger improvements in gait speed, the Timed Up and Go test result, and muscle strength after the A1 and A2 interventions than after the B and C interventions. After confirming the short-term effects, we performed an additional long-term intervention twice a week for 5 weeks, for a total of 10 sessions. Gait parameters also largely improved after long-term intervention. Gait-synchronized closed-loop brain stimulation combined with robot-assisted training targeting the swing phase of gait may promote the recovery of gait function in post-stroke patients. Further studies with a larger number of patients are necessary.

Improving Upper Limb and Gait Rehabilitation Outcomes in Post-Stroke Patients: A Scoping Review on the Additional Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation When Combined with Robot-Aided Rehabilitation

Robot-aided rehabilitation (RAR) and non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) are the two main interventions for post-stroke rehabilitation. The efficacy of both approaches in combination has not been well established yet. The importance of coupling these interventions, which both enhance brain plasticity to promote recovery, lies in augmenting the rehabilitation potential to constrain the limitation in daily living activities and the quality of life following stroke. This review aimed to evaluate the evidence of NIBS coupled with RAR in improving rehabilitation outcomes of upper limb and gait motor impairment in adult individuals with stroke. We included 18 clinical trials in this review. All studies were highly heterogeneous concerning the technical characteristics of robotic devices and NIBS protocols. However, the studies reported a global improvement in body structure and function and activity limitation for the upper limb, which were non-significant between the active and control groups. Concerning gait training protocols, the active group outperformed the control group in improving walking capacity and recovery. According to this review, NIBS and RAR in combination are promising but not yet largely recommendable as a systematic approach for stroke rehabilitation as there is not enough data about this. Therefore, more homogenous clinical trials are required, pointing out the best characteristics of the combined therapeutic protocols.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for gait recovery following stroke: A systematic review of current literature and beyond

Background

Over the last decade, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has set promise contributing to post-stroke gait rehabilitation. Even so, results are still inconsistent due to low sample size, heterogeneity of samples, and tDCS design differences preventing comparability. Nonetheless, updated knowledge in post-stroke neurophysiology and stimulation technologies opens up opportunities to massively improve treatments.

Objective

The current systematic review aims to summarize the current state-of-the-art on the effects of tDCS applied to stroke subjects for gait rehabilitation, discuss tDCS strategies factoring individual subject profiles, and highlight new promising strategies.

Methods

MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched for stroke randomized clinical trials using tDCS for the recovery of gait before 7 February 2022. In order to provide statistical support to the current review, we analyzed the achieved effect sizes and performed statistical comparisons.

Results

A total of 24 records were finally included in our review, totaling n = 651 subjects. Detailed analyses revealed n = 4 (17%) studies with large effect sizes (≥0.8), n = 6 (25%) studies with medium ones (≥0.5), and n = 6 (25%) studies yielding low effects sizes (≤ 0.2). Statistically significant negative correlations (rho = −0.65, p = 0.04) and differences (p = 0.03) argued in favor of tDCS interventions in the sub-acute phase. Finally, significant differences (p = 0.03) were argued in favor of a bifocal stimulation montage (anodal M1 ipsilesional and cathodal M1 contralesional) with respect to anodal ipsilesional M1.

Conclusion

Our systematic review highlights the potential of tDCS to contribute to gait recovery following stroke, although also the urgent need to improve current stimulation strategies and subject-customized interventions considering stroke severity, type or time-course, and the use of network-based multifocal stimulation approaches guided by computational biophysical modeling.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO: CRD42021256347.

Therapeutic Effect of Multi-Channel Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (M-tDCS) on Recovery of Cognitive Domains, Motor Functions of Paretic Hand and Gait in Subacute Stroke Survivors-A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol

Background:

There has been rapid drift of rehabilitation professionals toward the clinical use of technology aided electrical interventions. Brain is a cortical hub of functionally related neural connections. Motor learning entails strong interaction with the cognitive domains. So better outcomes may be expected by optimally targeting functionally correlated areas simultaneously through tDCS.

Aim:

To determine the therapeutic effect of Multi Channel tDCS in combination with Functional electrical stimulation, SaeboFlex and conventional rehabilitation on recovery of Cognitive Domains, Motor Functions of Paretic Hand, and Gait in individuals with subacute Stroke.

Methods:

This is prospective, randomized, double blind controlled clinical trial. Subacute Stroke Survivors with the age Group (40-75 years) will constitute the Population of the study. Participants will be randomly allocated to experimental or control group. Participants of Experimental group will receive Multi channel tDCS, Functional electrical stimulation, Saebo Flex Training and conventional rehabilitation. Participants of the group B will receive FES, training with SaeboFlex, conventional physiotherapy intervention similar to as given to the participants of group A and sham multi channel tDCS.

Outcome Measures:

The primary outcome measures of the study will be Fugl Meyer assessment, Electroencephalogram and secondary outcome measures of the study will be Grip strength, Pinch strength, Nine hole peg test( NHPT), Wisconsin gait scale, Montreal cognitive assessment, Electroencephaloraphy to observe the cortical changes and tDCS adverse effect questionnaire and stroke specific quality of Life scale.

Statistical Analysis:

The primary analysis of the study will be done at the end of 4 weeks. Statistical analysis of data will be done using SPSS Version 22 with the help of a statistician.

Conclusion:

An insight into the therapeutic interventions augmenting, cognitive and motor domains simultaneously may yield better outcomes in the field of stroke rehabilitation thereby improving quality of life of stroke survivors

Review of tDCS Configurations for Stimulation of the Lower-Limb Area of Motor Cortex and Cerebellum

This article presents an exhaustive analysis of the works present in the literature pertaining to transcranial direct current stimulation(tDCS) applications. The aim of this work is to analyze the specific characteristics of lower-limb stimulation, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of these works and framing them with the current knowledge of tDCS. The ultimate goal of this work is to propose areas of improvement to create more effective stimulation therapies with less variability.

Targeting Sensory and Motor Integration for Recovery of Movement After CNS Injury

The central nervous system (CNS) integrates sensory and motor information to acquire skilled movements, known as sensory-motor integration (SMI). The reciprocal interaction of the sensory and motor systems is a prerequisite for learning and performing skilled movement. Injury to various nodes of the sensorimotor network causes impairment in movement execution and learning. Stimulation methods have been developed to directly recruit the sensorimotor system and modulate neural networks to restore movement after CNS injury. Part 1 reviews the main processes and anatomical interactions responsible for SMI in health. Part 2 details the effects of injury on sites critical for SMI, including the spinal cord, cerebellum, and cerebral cortex. Finally, Part 3 reviews the application of activity-dependent plasticity in ways that specifically target integration of sensory and motor systems. Understanding of each of these components is needed to advance strategies targeting SMI to improve rehabilitation in humans after injury.

Effects of Combining Online Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Gait Training in Stroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive gait training may be effective for gait performance recovery after stroke; however, the timing of stimulation to obtain the best outcomes remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish evidence for changes in gait performance between online stimulation (tDCS and repetitive gait training simultaneously) and offline stimulation (gait training after tDCS). Methods: We comprehensively searched the electronic databases Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and included studies that combined cases of anodal tDCS with motor-related areas of the lower limbs and gait training. Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review, of which six were included in the meta-analysis. Result: The pooled effect estimate showed that anodal tDCS significantly improved the 10-m walking test (p = 0.04; I ² = 0%) and 6-min walking test (p = 0.001; I ² = 0%) in online stimulation compared to sham tDCS. Conclusion: Our findings suggested that simultaneous interventions may effectively improve walking ability. However, we cannot draw definitive conclusions because of the small sample size. More high-quality studies are needed on the effects of online stimulation, including various stimulation parameters.

Motor stroke recovery after tDCS: a systematic review

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor recovery in adult patients with stroke, taking into account the parameters that could influence the motor recovery responses. The second aim was to identify the best tDCS parameters and recommendations available based on the enhanced motor recovery demonstrated by the analyzed studies. Our systematic review was performed by searching full-text articles published before February 18, 2019 in the PubMed database. Different methods of applying tDCS in association with several complementary therapies were identified. Studies investigating the motor recovery effects of tDCS in adult patients with stroke were considered. Studies investigating different neurologic conditions and psychiatric disorders or those not meeting our methodologic criteria were excluded. The main parameters and outcomes of tDCS treatments are reported. There is not a robust concordance among the study outcomes with regard to the enhancement of motor recovery associated with the clinical application of tDCS. This is mainly due to the heterogeneity of clinical data, tDCS approaches, combined interventions, and outcome measurements. tDCS could be an effective approach to promote adaptive plasticity in the stroke population with significant positive premotor and postmotor rehabilitation effects. Future studies with larger sample sizes and high-quality studies with a better standardization of stimulation protocols are needed to improve the study quality, further corroborate our results, and identify the optimal tDCS protocols.

The Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Balance and Gait in Stroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Balance dysfunction after stroke often results in individuals unable to maintain normal posture, limits the recovery of gait and functional independence. We explore the short-term effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on improving balance function and gait in stroke patients.

Methods: We systematically searched on PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar for studies that explored the effects of tDCS on balance after stroke until August 2020. All involved studies used at least one measurement of balance, gait, or postural control as the outcome.

Results: A total of 145 studies were found, of which 10 (n = 246) met the inclusion criteria and included in our studies. The present meta-analysis showed that active tDCS have beneficial effects on timed up and go test (TUGT) [mean difference (MD): 0.35; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.11 to 0.58] and Functional Ambulation Category (FAC) (MD: −2.54; 95% CI: −3.93 to −1.15) in stroke patients. However, the results were not significant on the berg balance scale (BBS) (MD: −0.20; 95% CI: −1.44 to 1.04), lower extremity subscale of Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-LE) (MD: −0.43; 95% CI: −1.70 to 0.84), 10-m walk test (10 MWT) (MD: −0.93; 95% CI: −2.68 to 0.82) and 6-min walking test (6 MWT) (MD: −2.55; 95% CI: −18.34 to 13.23).

Conclusions: In conclusion, we revealed that tDCS might be an effective option for restoring walking independence and functional ambulation for stroke patients in our systematic review and meta-analysis.

Systematic Review Registration: CRD42020207565.

Discussion on the Rehabilitation of Stroke Hemiplegia Based on Interdisciplinary Combination of Medicine and Engineering

Interdisciplinary combinations of medicine and engineering are part of the strategic plan of many universities aiming to be world-class institutions. One area in which these interactions have been prominent is rehabilitation of stroke hemiplegia. This article reviews advances in the last five years of stroke hemiplegia rehabilitation via interdisciplinary combination of medicine and engineering. Examples of these technologies include VR, RT, mHealth, BCI, tDCS, rTMS, and TCM rehabilitation. In this article, we will summarize the latest research in these areas and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each to examine the frontiers of interdisciplinary medicine and engineering advances.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Physiotherapy on Gait Pattern, Balance, and Functionality in Stroke Patients. A Systematic Review

Background: The effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) together with conventional physiotherapy in motor rehabilitation after stroke has been widely studied. Despite this, few studies have focused on its application in gait and balance rehabilitation. This review aimed to determine the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with conventional physiotherapy on gait, balance, and the functionality of the lower limb after stroke. Methods: This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Four electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant articles. Randomized clinical trials in English or Spanish that evaluated the use of the transcranial direct current stimulation, combined with physiotherapy, to improve gait, balance, and lower limb functionality after stroke were included. Main results: 10 articles were included, with a total of 222 subjects. Data about population, assessment tools, protocols, sessions, and results were extracted. The methodological quality of the included studies ranged between 3 and 5. Conclusion: The use of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with physiotherapy improves gait parameters, static and dynamic balance, and lower limb functionality in stroke patients. Long-term effects have not yet been demonstrated.

Baseline Motor Impairment Predicts Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Physical Therapy-Induced Improvement in Individuals with Chronic Stroke

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can enhance the effect of conventional therapies in post-stroke neurorehabilitation. The ability to predict an individual's potential for tDCS-induced recovery may permit rehabilitation providers to make rational decisions about who will be a good candidate for tDCS therapy. We investigated the clinical and biological characteristics which might predict tDCS plus physical therapy effects on upper limb motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. A cohort of 80 chronic stroke individuals underwent ten to fifteen sessions of tDCS plus physical therapy. The sensorimotor function of the upper limb was assessed by means of the upper extremity section of the Fugl-Meyer scale (UE-FM), before and after treatment. A backward stepwise regression was used to assess the effect of age, sex, time since stroke, brain lesion side, and basal level of motor function on UE-FM improvement after treatment. Following the intervention, UE-FM significantly improved (p < 0.05), and the magnitude of the change was clinically important (mean 6.2 points, 95% CI: 5.2-7.4). The baseline level of UE-FM was the only significant predictor (R 2 = 0.90, F (1, 76) = 682.80, p < 0.001) of tDCS response. These findings may help to guide clinical decisions according to the profile of each patient. Future studies should investigate whether stroke severity affects the effectiveness of tDCS combined with physical therapy.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning, in people after stroke

BACKGROUND

Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Functional impairment, resulting in poor performance in activities of daily living (ADL) among stroke survivors is common. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving ADL performance, function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) after stroke, with improving cognition being the number one research priority in this field. A possible adjunct to stroke rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve these outcomes in people after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of tDCS on ADL, arm and leg function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect), dropouts and adverse events in people after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and seven other databases in January 2019. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we also searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings, and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This is the update of an existing review. In the previous version of this review, we focused on the effects of tDCS on ADL and function. In this update, we broadened our inclusion criteria to compare any kind of active tDCS for improving ADL, function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) versus any kind of placebo or control intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria. If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies involving a total of 1729 patients after stroke. We also identified 116 ongoing studies. The risk of bias did not differ substantially for different comparisons and outcomes. The majority of participants had ischaemic stroke, with mean age between 43 and 75 years, in the acute, postacute, and chronic phase after stroke, and level of impairment ranged from severe to less severe. Included studies differed in terms of type, location and duration of stimulation, amount of current delivered, electrode size and positioning, as well as type and location of stroke. We found 23 studies with 781 participants examining the effects of tDCS versus sham tDCS (or any other passive intervention) on our primary outcome measure, ADL after stroke. Nineteen studies with 686 participants reported absolute values and showed evidence of effect regarding ADL performance at the end of the intervention period (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.44; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence). Four studies with 95 participants reported change scores, and showed an effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence). Six studies with 269 participants assessed the effects of tDCS on ADL at the end of follow-up and provided absolute values, and found improved ADL (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence). One study with 16 participants provided change scores and found no effect (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 0.37; low-quality evidence). However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analysis that included only trials with proper allocation concealment. Thirty-four trials with a total of 985 participants measured upper extremity function at the end of the intervention period. Twenty-four studies with 792 participants that presented absolute values found no effect in favour of tDCS (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38; moderate-quality evidence). Ten studies with 193 participants that presented change values also found no effect (SMD 0.33, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.79; low-quality evidence). Regarding the effects of tDCS on upper extremity function at the end of follow-up, we identified five studies with a total of 211 participants (absolute values) without an effect (SMD -0.00, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). Three studies with 72 participants presenting change scores found an effect (SMD 1.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 2.11; low-quality evidence). Twelve studies with 258 participants reported outcome data for lower extremity function and 18 studies with 553 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at the end of the intervention period, but there was no effect (high-quality evidence). Three studies with 156 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at follow-up, but there was no evidence of an effect (moderate-quality evidence). Two studies with 56 participants found no evidence of effect of tDCS on cognitive abilities (low-quality evidence), but one study with 30 participants found evidence of effect of tDCS for improving spatial neglect (very low-quality evidence). In 47 studies with 1330 participants, the proportions of dropouts and adverse events were comparable between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.13; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of very low to moderate quality on the effectiveness of tDCS versus control (sham intervention or any other intervention) for improving ADL outcomes after stroke. However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analyses including only trials with proper allocation concealment. Evidence of low to high quality suggests that there is no effect of tDCS on arm function and leg function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities in people after stroke. Evidence of very low quality suggests that there is an effect on hemispatial neglect. There was moderate-quality evidence that adverse events and numbers of people discontinuing the treatment are not increased. Future studies should particularly engage with patients who may benefit the most from tDCS after stroke, but also should investigate the effects in routine application. Therefore, further large-scale randomised controlled trials with a parallel-group design and sample size estimation for tDCS are needed.

Breaking the ice to improve motor outcomes in patients with chronic stroke: a retrospective clinical study on neuromodulation plus robotics

BACKGROUND

Stroke is one of the main causes of impairment affecting daily activities and quality of life. There is a growing effort to potentiate the recovery of functional gait and to enable stroke patients to walk independently.

AIM

To estimate the effects of dual-site transcranial direct current stimulation (dstDCS) on gait recovery in chronic stroke patients provided with robot-aided gait training (RAGT).

METHODS

Thirty-seven patients were included in this retrospective clinical study. Nine patients were provided with dstDCS during the first 10 min of RAGT by using Lokomat®Pro (on-RAGT), 15 patients immediately after RAGT (post-RAGT), and 13 patients immediately before RAGT (pre-RAGT).

RESULTS

Each group improved over time concerning disability burden and lower limb strength. on-RAGT and post-RAGT experienced better improvement in balance (p < 0.001) and, moderately, gait endurance (p = 0.04) as compared to pre-RAGT. Furthermore, all treatments decreased the facilitation of the unaffected hemisphere (p < 0.001) and the inhibition of the affected hemisphere (p < 0.001). The duration of such aftereffects was found to be greater for post-RAGT.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This is the first trial with dstDCS coupled with RAGT in chronic stroke patients with gait impairment. When timely coupled with RAGT, dstDCS may be considered an effective tool for the recovery of lower limb function in patients with first unilateral stroke in the chronic phase. Moreover, our data suggest the ductility of dstDCS concerning RAGT timing, thus making this intervention suitable in a neurorehabilitation setting and well adaptable to patients' needs.

Cortical priming strategies for gait training after stroke: a controlled, stratified trial

BACKGROUND

Stroke survivors experience chronic gait impairments, so rehabilitation has focused on restoring ambulatory capacity. High-intensity speed-based treadmill training (HISTT) is one form of walking rehabilitation that can improve walking, but its effectiveness has not been thoroughly investigated. Additionally, cortical priming with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and movement may enhance HISTT-induced improvements in walking, but there have been no systematic investigations. The objective of this study was to determine if motor priming can augment the effects of HISTT on walking in chronic stroke survivors.

METHODS

Eighty-one chronic stroke survivors participated in a controlled trial with stratification into four groups: 1) control-15 min of rest (n = 20), 2) tDCS-15 min of stimulation-based priming with transcranial direct current stimulation (n = 21), 3) ankle motor tracking (AMT)-15 min of movement-based priming with targeted movements of the ankle and sham tDCS (n = 20), and 4) tDCS+AMT-15 min of concurrent tDCS and AMT (n = 20). Participants performed 12 sessions of HISTT (40 min/day, 3 days/week, 4 weeks). Primary outcome measure was walking speed. Secondary outcome measures included corticomotor excitability (CME). Outcomes were measured at pre, post, and 3-month follow-up assessments.

RESULTS

HISTT improved walking speed for all groups, which was partially maintained 3 months after training. No significant difference in walking speed was seen between groups. The tDCS+AMT group demonstrated greater changes in CME than other groups. Individuals who demonstrated up-regulation of CME after tDCS increased walking speed more than down-regulators.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the effectiveness of HISTT to improve walking; however, motor priming did not lead to additional improvements. Upregulation of CME in the tDCS+AMT group supports a potential role for priming in enhancing neural plasticity. Greater changes in walking were seen in tDCS up-regulators, suggesting that responsiveness to tDCS might play an important role in determining the capacity to respond to priming and HISTT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03492229. Registered 10 April 2018 - retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03492229 .

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Facilitate Lower Limb Recovery Following Stroke: Current Evidence and Future Directions

Stroke remains a global leading cause of disability. Novel treatment approaches are required to alleviate impairment and promote greater functional recovery. One potential candidate is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which is thought to non-invasively promote neuroplasticity within the human cortex by transiently altering the resting membrane potential of cortical neurons. To date, much work involving tDCS has focused on upper limb recovery following stroke. However, lower limb rehabilitation is important for regaining mobility, balance, and independence and could equally benefit from tDCS. The purpose of this review is to discuss tDCS as a technique to modulate brain activity and promote recovery of lower limb function following stroke. Preliminary evidence from both healthy adults and stroke survivors indicates that tDCS is a promising intervention to support recovery of lower limb function. Studies provide some indication of both behavioral and physiological changes in brain activity following tDCS. However, much work still remains to be performed to demonstrate the clinical potential of this neuromodulatory intervention. Future studies should consider treatment targets based on individual lesion characteristics, stage of recovery (acute vs. chronic), and residual white matter integrity while accounting for known determinants and biomarkers of tDCS response.

Combining transcranial direct-current stimulation with gait training in patients with neurological disorders: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) is an easy-to-apply, cheap, and safe technique capable of affecting cortical brain activity. However, its effectiveness has not been proven for many clinical applications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether the effect of different strategies for gait training in patients with neurological disorders can be enhanced by the combined application of tDCS compared to sham stimulation. Additionally, we attempted to record and analyze tDCS parameters to optimize its efficacy.

METHODS

A search in Pubmed, PEDro, and Cochrane databases was performed to find randomized clinical trials that combined tDCS with gait training. A chronological filter from 2010 to 2018 was applied and only studies with variables that quantified the gait function were included.

RESULTS

A total of 274 studies were found, of which 25 met the inclusion criteria. Of them, 17 were rejected based on exclusion criteria. Finally, 8 trials were evaluated that included 91 subjects with stroke, 57 suffering from Parkinson's disease, and 39 with spinal cord injury. Four of the eight assessed studies did not report improved outcomes for any of its variables compared to the placebo treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no conclusive results that confirm that tDCS can enhance the effect of the different strategies for gait training. Further research for specific pathologies, with larger sample sizes and adequate follow-up periods, are required to optimize the existing protocols for applying tDCS.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Combined With Wrist Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation on Motor Recovery in Subacute Stroke Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Both transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and wrist robot-assisted training have demonstrated to be promising approaches for stroke rehabilitation. However, the effects of the combination of the two treatments in subacute stroke patients are not clear yet. To investigate the effectiveness of combining tDCS and wrist robot-assisted rehabilitation in subacute stroke patients in comparison with the wrist robotic training only, a single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial was performed with 40 subacute stroke patients (25 ± 7 days from stroke onset time). Patients were randomly assigned to experimental group (EG, n = 20 ) where patients receive real tDCS [2 mA, 20 min, and the anodal electrode on the primary motor cortex-M1-area of the affected hemisphere (C3/C4 in the 10-20 EEG system and the cathodal electrode on the contralateral orbit bone)] or control group (CG, n = 20 ) where patients receive sham tDCS (5 s) during wrist robotic rehabilitation training. The effects of the treatment were evaluated by means of the upper extremity, shoulder-elbow, and wrist subsections of the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale, Modified Ashworth Scale, Motricity Index and Box and Block Test together with kinematic parameters. One out of 20 patients in the CG did not complete the treatment. All the clinical outcome measures except the Modified Ashworth Scale showed a significant increase after the treatment in both groups. However, no significant difference in the average changes after treatment between groups was observed. The movement velocity and smoothness showed significant increases after the training, even though no significant difference between groups was observed. The combination of wrist robot-assisted training and tDCS did not show additional effects in comparison with wrist robot-assisted training only in subacute stroke patients. The negative results found in this paper are specific for the specific intervention. The timing of delivering the tDCS and the robot-assisted therapy has to be deeply investigated to enhance the effectiveness of the training.

The Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on the Walking Performance of Chronic Hemiplegic Patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a single session of tDCS over the primary motor cortex of the lower limb (M1-LL) vs. placebo on the walking performance in chronic hemiplegic patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Randomized, cross-over, double-blinded study. Eighteen patients with initially complete hemiplegia and poststroke delay >6 months were included. Each patient received a single session of anodal stimulation (2 mA, 20 min) over M1-LL (a-tDCS condition) and a pseudostimulation session (SHAM condition). The order of the two sessions was randomly assigned, with an 11-day interval between the two sessions. The anodal electrode was centered on the hotspot identified with Transcranial magnetic stimulation. The cathode was placed above the contralesional orbitofrontal cortex. Walking performance was evaluated with the Wade test and the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), gait parameters with GAITRite, and balance with posturography. These tests were performed during and 1 hour after the stimulation. Baseline assessments were performed the day before and 10 days after each session.

RESULTS

The comparison between the 6MWT under a-tDCS vs. SHAM conditions demonstrated a nonsignificant positive effect of the stimulation by 15% during stimulation (p = 0.360) and a significant positive effect of 25% 1 hour after stimulation (p = 0.038). No significant differences were observed for the other evaluations.

DISCUSSION

These results showed a significant positive effect of a single session of anodal tDCS of the M1-LL in chronic hemiplegic patients. This proof-of-concept study supports the conduct of clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of a walking training program associated with iterative tDCS stimulation.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors reported no conflict of interest.

Boosting robot-assisted rehabilitation of stroke hemiparesis by individualized selection of upper limb movements - a pilot study

Background

Intensive robot-assisted training of the upper limb after stroke can reduce motor impairment, even at the chronic stage. However, the effectiveness of practice for recovery depends on the selection of the practised movements. We hypothesized that rehabilitation can be optimized by selecting the movements to be practiced based on the trainee’s performance profile.

Methods

We present a novel principle (‘steepest gradients’) for performance-based selection of movements. The principle is based on mapping motor performance across a workspace and then selecting movements located at regions of the steepest transition between better and worse performance.

To assess the benefit of this principle we compared the effect of 15 sessions of robot-assisted reaching training on upper-limb motor impairment, between two groups of people who have moderate-to-severe chronic upper-limb hemiparesis due to stroke. The test group (N = 7) received steepest gradients-based training, iteratively selected according to the steepest gradients principle with weekly remapping, whereas the control group (N = 9) received a standard “centre-out” reaching training. Training intensity was identical.

Results

Both groups showed improvement in Fugl-Meyer upper-extremity scores (the primary outcome measure). Moreover, the test group showed significantly greater improvement (twofold) compared to control. The score remained elevated, on average, for at least 4 weeks although the additional benefit of the steepest-gradients -based training diminished relative to control.

Conclusions

This study provides a proof of concept for the superior benefit of performance-based selection of practiced movements in reducing upper-limb motor impairment due to stroke. This added benefit was most evident in the short term, suggesting that performance-based steepest-gradients training may be effective in increasing the rate of initial phase of practice-based recovery; we discuss how long-term retention may also be improved.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ISRCTN65226825, registered 12 June 2018 - Retrospectively registered,

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12984-019-0513-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A wearable resistive robot facilitates locomotor adaptations during gait

BACKGROUND

Robotic-resisted treadmill walking is a form of task-specific training that has been used to improve gait function in individuals with neurological injury, such as stroke, spinal cord injury, or cerebral palsy. Traditionally, these devices use active elements (e.g., motors or actuators) to provide resistance during walking, making them bulky, expensive, and less suitable for overground or in-home rehabilitation. We recently developed a low-cost, wearable robotic brace that generates resistive torques across the knee joint using a simple magnetic brake. However, the possible effects of training with this device on gait function in a clinical population are currently unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to test the acute effects of resisted walking with this device on kinematics, muscle activation patterns, and gait velocity in chronic stroke survivors.

METHODS

Six stroke survivors wore the resistive brace and walked on a treadmill for 20 minutes (4×5 minutes) at their self-selected walking speed while simultaneously performing a foot trajectory-tracking task to minimize stiff-knee gait. Electromyography, sagittal plane gait kinematics, and overground gait velocity were collected to evaluate the acute effects of the device on gait function.

RESULTS

Robotic-resisted treadmill training resulted in a significant increase in quadriceps and hamstring EMG activity during walking. Significant aftereffects (i.e., improved joint excursions) were also observed on the hip and knee kinematics, which persisted for several steps after training. More importantly, training resulted in significant improvements in overground gait velocity. These results were consistent in all the subjects tested.

CONCLUSION

This study provides preliminary evidence indicating that robotic-resisted treadmill walking using our knee brace can result in meaningful biomechanical aftereffects that translate to overground walking.

The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on locomotion and balance in patients with chronic stroke: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Following stroke, patients are often left with hemiparesis that reduces balance and gait capacity. A recent, non-invasive technique, transcranial direct current stimulation, can be used to modify cortical excitability when used in an anodal configuration. It also increases the excitability of spinal neuronal circuits involved in movement in healthy subjects. Many studies in patients with stroke have shown that this technique can improve motor, sensory and cognitive function. For example, anodal tDCS has been shown to improve motor performance of the lower limbs in patients with stroke, such as voluntary quadriceps strength, toe-pinch force and reaction time. Nevertheless, studies of motor function have been limited to simple tasks. Surprisingly, the effects of tDCS on the locomotion and balance of patients with chronic stroke have never been evaluated. In this study, we hypothesise that anodal tDCS will improve balance and gait parameters in patients with chronic stroke-related hemiparesis through its effects at cortical and spinal level.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, single-centre, cross-over study over 36 months. Forty patients with chronic stroke will be included. Each patient will participate in three visits: an inclusion visit, and two visits during which they will all undergo either one 30-min session of transcranial direct current stimulation or one 30-min session of placebo stimulation in a randomised order. Evaluations will be carried out before, during and twice after stimulation. The primary outcome is the variability of the displacement of the centre of mass during gait and a static-balance task. Secondary outcomes include clinical and functional measures before and after stimulation. A three-dimensional gait analysis, and evaluation of static balance on a force platform will be also conducted before, during and after stimulation.

DISCUSSION

These results should constitute a useful database to determine the aspects of complex motor function that are the most improved by transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with hemiparesis. It is the first essential step towards validating this technique as a treatment, coupled with task-oriented training.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02134158 . First received on 18 December 2013; last updated on 14 September 2016. Other study ID numbers: P120135 / AOM12126, 2013-A00952-43.