Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Neurological Sciences
Published in: Neurological Sciences 3/2022

01-03-2022 | Stroke | Original Article

The effects of concurrent M1 anodal tDCS and physical therapy interventions on function of ankle muscles in patients with stroke: a randomized, double-blinded sham-controlled trial study

Authors: Fatemeh Ehsani, Marzieh Mortezanejad, Mohaddeseh Hafez Yosephi, Said Daniali, Shapour Jaberzadeh

Published in: Neurological Sciences | Issue 3/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

One of the most common symptoms in stroke patients is spasticity. The aims were to investigate the effects of anodal trans-cranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) over the affected primary motor cortex (M1) on ankle plantar flexor spasticity and dorsiflexor muscle activity in stroke patients. The design of this study was a randomized sham-controlled clinical trial. Thirty-two participants with stroke were randomly assigned to three groups (experimental, sham, control groups). Participants in the experimental and sham groups received 10-session 20-min M1 a-tDCS concurrent with physical therapy (PT), while the control group only received 10-session PT. All groups were instructed to perform home stretching exercises and balance training. Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) of plantar flexors, and EMG activity of lateral gastrocnemius (LG) and tibialis anterior (TA) were recorded during active and passive ankle dorsiflexion immediately and 1 month after interventions. A significant reduction was shown in MAS and EMG activity of LG during dorsiflexion, immediately and 1 month after intervention in the M1 a-tDCS group (p <0.001). BBS also significantly increased only in the M1 a-tDCS group (p <0.001). In addition, EMG activity of TA during active dorsiflexion increased immediately and 1 month after intervention in the M1 a-tDCS group (p <0.001). However, in the sham and control groups, EMG activity of TA increased immediately (p<0.001), while this was not maintained 1 month after intervention (p >0.05). PT concurrent with M1 a-tDCS can significantly prime lasting effects of decreasing LG spasticity, increasing TA muscle activity, and also balance in stroke patients.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Kolominsky-Rabas PL et al (2001) Epidemiology of ischemic stroke subtypes according to TOAST criteria: incidence, recurrence, and long-term survival in ischemic stroke subtypes: a population-based study. Stroke 32(12):2735–2740CrossRef
2.
3.
Kuo C-L, Hu G-C (2018) Post-stroke spasticity: a review of epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatments. Int J Gerontol 12(4):280–284CrossRef
4.
Feldman RG, Young RR, Koella WP Spasticity, disordered motor control. 1980. Symposia Specialists.
5.
Decq P, Filipetti P, Lefaucheur J-P (2004) Evaluation of spasticity in adults. Oper Tech Neurosurg 7(3):100–108CrossRef
6.
Malhotra S et al (2009) Spasticity, an impairment that is poorly defined and poorly measured. Clin Rehabil 23(7):651–658CrossRef
7.
Biering-Sørensen F, Nielsen JB, Klinge K (2006) Spasticity-assessment: a review. Spinal Cord 44(12):708–722CrossRef
8.
Charalambous CP (2014) Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Classic papers in orthopaedics, Springer, pp 415–417
9.
Albani G et al (2010) Use of surface EMG for evaluation of upper limb spasticity during botulinum toxin therapy in stroke patients. Funct Neurol 25(2):103PubMed
10.
Thibaut A et al (2013) Spasticity after stroke: physiology, assessment and treatment. Brain Inj 27(10):1093–1105CrossRef
11.
Nitsche MA, Paulus W (2000) Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol 527(3):633–639CrossRef
12.
Lindberg PG et al (2009) Cortical activity in relation to velocity dependent movement resistance in the flexor muscles of the hand after stroke. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 23(8):800–810CrossRef
13.
Wu D et al (2013) Effects on decreasing upper-limb poststroke muscle tone using transcranial direct current stimulation: a randomized sham-controlled study. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 94(1):1–8CrossRef
14.
Bütefisch CM et al (2008) Relationship between interhemispheric inhibition and motor cortex excitability in subacute stroke patients. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 22(1):4–21CrossRef
15.
Nowak DA et al (2009) Interhemispheric competition after stroke: brain stimulation to enhance recovery of function of the affected hand. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 23(7):641–656CrossRef
16.
Viana R et al (2014) Effects of the addition of transcranial direct current stimulation to virtual reality therapy after stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neuro Rehabilitation 34(3):437–446PubMed
17.
Elsner B et al (2016) Transcranial direct current stimulation for improving spasticity after stroke: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J. Rehabil. Med. 48(7):565–570CrossRef
18.
Chang MC, Kim DY, Park DH (2015) Enhancement of cortical excitability and lower limb motor function in patients with stroke by transcranial direct current stimulation. Brain Stimulation 8(3):561–566CrossRef
19.
Gunduz A, Kumru H, Pascual-Leone A (2014) Outcomes in spasticity after repetitive transcranial magnetic and transcranial direct current stimulations. Neural Regeneration Research 9(7):712CrossRef
20.
Koh C-L et al (2017) Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation with sensory modulation on stroke motor rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil 98(12):2477–2484CrossRef
21.
Khedr EM et al (2013) Effect of anodal versus cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on stroke rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 27(7):592–601CrossRef
22.
Thorsen R, Spadone R, Ferrarin M (2001) A pilot study of myoelectrically controlled FES of upper extremity. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 9(2):161–168CrossRef
23.
Fruhauf AMA et al (2017) Immediate effect of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with functional electical stimulation on activity of the tibialis anterior muscle and balance of individuals with hemiparesis stemming from a stroke. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 29(12):2138–2146
24.
Samaei A et al (2017) Online and offline effects of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation on motor learning in healthy older adults: a randomized double-blind sham-controlled study. Eur. J. Neurosci. 45(9):1177–1185CrossRef
25.
Brunoni AR et al (2011) A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 14(8):1133–1145CrossRef
26.
Gandiga PC, Hummel FC, Cohen LG (2006) Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clin. Neuromuscul 117(4):845–850
27.
Hermens HJ et al (2000) Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 10(5):361–374CrossRef
28.
Li R, Hu XL, Tong K Combined electromyography (EMG)-driven system with functional electrical stimulation (FES) for poststroke rehabilitation. in 2008 2nd IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics. 2008. IEEE.
29.
Allison G, Marshall R, Singer K (1993) EMG signal amplitude normalization technique in stretch-shortening cycle movements. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol 3(4):236–244CrossRef
30.
Hu B et al (2018) Spasticity assessment based on the Hilbert–Huang transform marginal spectrum entropy and the root mean square of surface electromyography signals: a preliminary study. Biomed Eng Online 17(1):27CrossRef
31.
Kim DY et al (2005) Biomechanical assessment with electromyography of post-stroke ankle plantar flexor spasticity. Yonsei Med. J 46(4):546–554CrossRef
32.
Berg KO et al (1992) Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument. Canadian journal of public health= Revue canadienne de sante publique 83:S7–S11PubMed
33.
Auvichayapat N, Amatachaya A, Auvichayapat P (2014) Reduction of spasticity in cerebral palsy by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. J Med Assoc Thai 97(9):954–962PubMed
34.
Peruzzotti-Jametti L et al (2013) Safety and efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in acute experimental ischemic stroke. Stroke 44(11):3166–3174CrossRef
35.
Yan T, Hui-Chan CW, Li LS (2005) Functional electrical stimulation improves motor recovery of the lower extremity and walking ability of subjects with first acute stroke: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Stroke 36(1):80–85CrossRef
36.
Sabut SK et al (2011) Functional electrical stimulation of dorsiflexor muscle: effects on dorsiflexor strength, plantarflexor spasticity, and motor recovery in stroke patients. Neuro Rehabilitation 29(4):393–400PubMed
37.
Moon S-H, Choi J-H, Park S-E (2017) The effects of functional electrical stimulation on muscle tone and stiffness of stroke patients. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 29(2):238–241CrossRef
38.
Quandt F, Hummel FC (2014) The influence of functional electrical stimulation on hand motor recovery in stroke patients: a review. Experimental & Translational Stroke Medicine 6(1):9CrossRef
39.
Roche N et al (2011) Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the leg motor area on lumbar spinal network excitability in healthy subjects. J Physiol 589(11):2813–2826CrossRef
40.
Andrade SM et al (2017) Effects of different montages of transcranial direct current stimulation on the risk of falls and lower limb function after stroke. Neurol. Res 39(12):1037–1043CrossRef
41.
Zheng X, Alsop DC, Schlaug G (2011) Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on human regional cerebral blood flow. Neuroimage 58(1):26–33CrossRef
42.
Olsen TS et al (1981) Focal cerebral hyperemia in acute stroke. Incidence, pathophysiology and clinical significance. Stroke 12(5):598–607CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The effects of concurrent M1 anodal tDCS and physical therapy interventions on function of ankle muscles in patients with stroke: a randomized, double-blinded sham-controlled trial study
Authors
Fatemeh Ehsani
Marzieh Mortezanejad
Mohaddeseh Hafez Yosephi
Said Daniali
Shapour Jaberzadeh
Publication date
01-03-2022
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Neurological Sciences / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 1590-1874
Electronic ISSN: 1590-3478
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05503-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

Neurological Sciences 3/2022 Go to the issue

Original Article

Job satisfaction among physicians and nurses involved in the management of multiple sclerosis: the role of happiness and meaning at work

Original Article

Impact on daily clinical practice of the latest evidence on percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale after cryptogenic stroke: a single-center experience

Original Article

Instrumental assessment of physiotherapy and onabolulinumtoxin-A on cervical and headache parameters in chronic migraine

Review Article

Freezing of gait: overview on etiology, treatment, and future directions

Original Article

Characterization and management of neurological adverse events during immune-checkpoint inhibitors treatment: an Italian multicentric experience

Letter to the Editor

The first case of infantile-onset multisystem neurologic, endocrine, and pancreatic disease caused by novel PTRH2 mutation in Japan