Next Article in Journal
Coexistence of Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein Immunoglobulin G and Neuronal or Glial Antibodies in the Central Nervous System: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Predictors of Post-Stroke Depression: A Retrospective Cohort Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Brain Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/brainsci12080994
brainsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Rehabilitation Interventions Combined with Noninvasive Brain Stimulation on Upper Limb Motor Function in Stroke Patients

by
Tae-Hyun Cha
and
Ho-Sung Hwang
*
Department of Occupational Therapy, Konyang University of Occupational Therapy, 158, Gwanjeodong-ro, Seo-gu, Daejeon 35365, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Brain Sci. 2022, 12(8), 994; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12080994
Submission received: 3 July 2022 / Revised: 21 July 2022 / Accepted: 25 July 2022 / Published: 27 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Neurorehabilitation)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: This systematic review aimed to focus on the effects of rehabilitation interventions combined with noninvasive brain stimulation on upper limb motor function in stroke patients. (2) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were used for the literature research. Articles were searched using the following terms: “Stroke OR CVA OR cerebrovascular accident” AND “upper limb OR upper extremity” AND “NIBS OR Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation” OR “rTMS” OR “repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation” OR “tDCS” OR “transcranial direct current stimulation” AND “RCT” OR randomized control trial.” In total, 12 studies were included in the final analysis. (3) Results: Analysis using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale for qualitative evaluation of the literature rated eight articles as “excellent” and four as “good.” Combined rehabilitation interventions included robotic therapy, motor imagery using brain–computer interaction, sensory control, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, task-oriented approach, task-oriented mirror therapy, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, and behavior observation therapy. (4) Conclusions: Although it is difficult to estimate the recovery of upper limb motor function in stroke patients treated with noninvasive brain stimulation alone, a combination of a task-oriented approach, occupational therapy, action observation, wrist robot-assisted rehabilitation, and physical therapy can be effective.

1. Introduction

Stroke is a temporary or permanent neurological functional disorder resulting from local brain damage caused by a lack of oxygen and glucose supply to the brain for a long period of time because of pathological problems such as bleeding and ischemia in the cerebral vessels [1]. Because of limited upper limb motor function recovery, a total of 25–74% of worldwide stroke survivors need help or are completely dependent on assistance in their daily activities because of functional disorders [2,3]. Neurological damage from stroke occasionally decreases motor cortex excitement, which travels down the spinal cord and reduces motor nerve excitement [4]. In particular, the primary motor area (M1) plays an important role in causing peripheral muscle contractions to make movements, such as reaching [5,6]. Generally, each hemisphere of the brain interacts to balance excitement and inhibition. Reduced M1 excitement on the damaged side stimulates excitement of the corresponding area on the other side, which consequently further reduces the M1 activity on the damaged side [7]. This imbalance between excitement and inhibition has negative effects on upper limb motor function [8].
Intensive rehabilitation is an essential factor in recovery from damage after stroke. However, recently, various studies have attempted to seek ways to make use of direct modulation of brain function as a treatment tool to accelerate the recovery of damaged brain function from neurological diseases rather than using therapies that affect the brain indirectly through physiotherapy [9,10,11]. Among them, noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS), which is one of the major fields of study in cranial nerve rehabilitation and cognitive science, is utilized in the recovery of motor function in the rehabilitation of stroke patients [12]. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial electrical stimulation are NIBS, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are most commonly used in neuroscience and clinical trials [13]. There is a range of NIBS techniques based on their use and their relative advantages and disadvantages [14]. rTMS enables the brain to adapt to environmental and experiential changes through reorganization of the brain based on plasticity [15]. rTMS is a method of generating depolarization of nerve cells in the cerebral cortex by inducing microcurrents in the human brain using magnetic waves, which are generated in a short period of time by placing an electric coil on the outermost skin of the head [16]. rTMS, which is transmitted in a repetitive manner, regulates nerve firing and excites or inhibits brain activity. In healthy volunteers, high-frequency rTMS increased cortical excitability, as measured by a decrease in motor threshold (MT) and an increase in motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude, whereas low-frequency rTMS inhibited cortical excitability and had the opposite effect on MT and MEP [17,18,19]. Although high-frequency rTMS targeting M1 may improve motor learning of the upper extremities on the opposite side in healthy volunteers, it can reduce motor function of the terminal extremities on the same side [20]. It has been found that low-frequency rTMS improves motor function of the opposite hand through a similar mechanism [21].
In a previous study, task-oriented training after rTMS was effective at relieving upper extremity motor function and stiffness [22]. In addition, combining rTMS and a finger movement program, which sequentially follows instructions, the effectiveness was demonstrated by improvements in hand function [23].
Another NIBS therapy, tDCS, has a positive effect on motor function in the damaged side by inducing neuroplasticity changes in the cerebral cortex caused by changing the excitability of potentials directly in the stimulated part and indirectly in the corresponding part on the other side [7,24]. During tDCS, two electrodes are attached to the scalp, and microcurrents of 1–2 mA are applied, whereby the excitability of the brain nerve is increased under the anodal electrode and decreased under the cathodal electrode [24,25].
tDCS helps restore multiple neurological states by increasing or decreasing cortical excitability in the stimulation region [26]. In stroke patients, many studies have shown that motor function and hand motor tasks can be improved by increasing motor cortical excitability using tDCS [27]. A recent study using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) reported that motor-related activities increased and motor function improved after using anodal tDCS targeting M1 in a hemisphere with lesions [28]. In addition, a study reported that inhibiting the opposite hemisphere using cathodal tDCS over M1 can improve motor recovery after stroke [29]. A recent study has shown that reducing the excitability of the undamaged hemisphere significantly improves motor learning of paralyzed hands in stroke patients for up to 24 h [30]. In a previous study, the fusion of tDCS and functional electrical stimulation was effective for upper limb motor function [12]. Another study demonstrated the effectiveness of tDCS and virtual reality programs for balance and falls in stroke patients [31].
Previous studies have demonstrated that among the new treatments aimed at improving motor recovery, NIBS techniques such as tDCS and rTMS can induce brain plasticity and are most effective in motor recovery after stroke [32,33]. Recently, studies combining various rehabilitation approaches have been conducted in order to improve functional recovery after stroke [34,35]. Previous studies have shown effective improvement of upper limb motor function with various interventions combined with NIBS [12,22,23,30]. However, the clinical importance of these results are somewhat insignificant, and despite some significant results, two recent systematic reviews have suggested that a lot more information is required to support the use of rTMS and tDCS for stroke recovery [36,37].
Therefore, this study aimed to investigate recent trends and present evidence on the effectiveness of rehabilitation intervention combined with NIBS on upper limb motor function in stroke patients based on academic articles published in the last 10 years. Furthermore, this systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the characteristics of the study participants, evaluation tools, application strength and location, application type, and results.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design and Literature Research

This study was approved by the Bioethics Committee (KYU-2020-136-01) at Konyang University. This is a systematic review of research methods combining NIBS with various rehabilitation therapies on the basis of RCT in stroke patients among literature published between January 2010 and December 2019. Literature selection was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and the quality of studies and evidence was proven using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale and Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO).
The literature research was conducted from 23 September to 1 October 2020, using databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL. The titles and abstracts of the studies were reviewed using the following keywords: “Stroke” OR “CVA” OR “cerebrovascular accident”, “upper limb OR upper extremity”, “NIBS” OR “Non-invasive Brain Stimulation” OR “rTMS” OR “repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation” OR “tDCS” OR “transcranial direct current stimulation”, and “RCT” OR “randomized control trial”. Among the results, 12 studies that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria of this study were as follows: studies on stroke patients; studies that reported the effectiveness of rehabilitation therapy combined with NIBS, rTMS, or tDCS; RCT; studies related to upper limb motor function; studies written in English; and studies that allowed full text. The exclusion criteria were as follows: studies on patients with diseases other than stroke; studies only using NIBS, rTMS, or tDCS; studies that excluded upper limb motor function assessment; studies that were not written in English; studies that had limited accessibility; systematic review studies; and meta-analysis studies.

2.3. Literature Selection

Literature collection, selection, and quality assessment were independently performed by two researchers. Each of the chosen studies was compared, analyzed, and discussion before a final decision was made. A PRISMA flow diagram was used for study selection (Figure 1). A total of 130 studies were identified, and 31 studies were shortlisted after excluding studies with single-method interventions, reviews, studies contradictory to the subject, and redundant studies. From the 31 studies, 14 were selected, further excluding 17 studies that did not provide body text. Finally, 12 studies were selected after analysis of the body texts, further excluding one protocol research study and one case study.

2.4. Quality Evaluation of Literature

In this study, the level of evidence was reviewed using 10 items from the PEDro Scale. The PEDro Scale scores clinical trials based on their reliability and statistical information, and is widely used to evaluate clinical trials [38]. There are a total of 11 items, and “yes” (1 point) or “no” (0 points) is marked, if applicable to each item. The maximum score is 10, which is the sum of the scores of items from 2 to 11, excluding item 1. Scores of 9–10 are considered “excellent”, 6–8 “good”, 4–5 “fair”, and ≤4 “poor”. Thus, the PEDro Scale evaluates the methodological quality of a study.

2.5. PICO Evaluation

To determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation therapy combined with NIBS, rTMS, or tDCS, the results of the 12 studies were analyzed using PICO. The types, intensity, location of application, and combined therapy of NIBS therapy were presented as interventional measures.

3. Results

3.1. Quality Analysis of the Studies

The PEDro analysis revealed that among the 12 selected studies, eight studies were in the “excellent” level consisting of four studies with a score of 10, one study with a score of 9, and three studies with a score of 8. There were four studies in the “good” level, with a score of 6 (Table 1).

3.2. Characteristic of Participants

All 12 studies included in this analysis were RCTs. The total number of study participants was 375 in both the experimental and control groups. A total of 241 males and 161 females participated in the study. Five studies included stroke patients who were in their acute phase for <1 year and six studies included those in their acute phase for ≥1 year. The incidence period was unknown in one study. The average age of participants in the 12 studies was 56.57 years. A total of 166 participants had left hemiplegia, and 209 had right hemiplegia (Table 2).

3.3. Stimulation Intensity, Frequency, and Duration

tDCS was applied in six studies and rTMS was applied in six studies (Table 3). The stimulation current used in studies with tDCS was 1–2 mA; 1 mA was used in one study, 1.5 mA in one study, and 2 mA in four studies. The application duration was 13–20 min. Among the rTMS studies, five studies used low frequency stimulation at 1 Hz, and one study used high frequency stimulation at 20 Hz. Stimulation intensity was set to 90–120% MT, and 600–1800 pulses were applied for 10–30 min.

3.4. Assessment Tools

As an assessment tool to evaluate upper limb motor function, the Fugl−Meyer Assessment (FMA), was most commonly used (11 studies); the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) was used in six studies; hand strength was used in five studies; the box and block test (BBT) in three studies; and Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) and Brunnstrom stage (BRS) in two studies, respectively. Other assessment tools used were the Barthel Index in three studies and the stroke-specific quality of life in two studies (Table 4).

3.5. Combined Physiotherapy

A robotic device was combined with tDCS in two studies, virtual reality in one, motor imagery using a brain–computer interface in one, sensory control in one, and occupational therapy in one. Physiotherapy was combined with rTMS in three studies, and a task-oriented approach, task-oriented mirror therapy, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, and behavior observational therapy were found each in one study, seperately.

4. Discussion

This systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of rehabilitation therapy combined with NIBS therapy on upper limb motor function in stroke patients. NIBS is divided into rTMS and tDCS; it varies depending on the method used and has relative advantages and disadvantages. We conducted a systematic review of 12 RCTs to provide evidence on the impact of rehabilitation therapy on upper limb motor function when combined with NIBS. The quality of the analyzed literature was very high, with eight studies at the “excellent” level. The upper function assessments used to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation therapy combined with NIBS were FMA, BBT, MAS, Medical Research Council Sum Score, WMFT, range of motion, hand strength, modified Jebsen–Taylor Hand Function Test, Action Research Arm Test, BRS, pinch grip, and manual function test. Among the 12 studies, FMA was the most commonly used (11 studies), followed by MAS and hand strength, which shows that assessment tools for general upper motor function, spasticity, and muscle strength are preferred.
A previous study reported that variables such as electric intensity, current density, and tDCS duration should be mainly taken into consideration for safety when it comes to applying tDCS [50]. In addition, other studies have reported that tDCS has an effect on upper extremity function when combined with other intervention programs [51]. It is important to elucidate which combination of intervention and tDCS would be effective. Two studies used robotic devices for rehabilitation interventions combined with tDCS. These two studies were conducted over 6 weeks. The intensity of tDCS was 2 mA and the action time was 20 min; however, in one study, the effect on upper extremity function could not be confirmed [39]. In contrast, another study found a positive effect on the improvement of upper extremity function and agility [48]. The electrodes in tDCS are typically applied on C3 and C4 of the ipsilesional and contralesional areas, depending on the type of stimulation. The cathodal current decreases the excitability of the brain and the anodal current increases the excitability of the brain. Dual current, in which both currents are stimulated simultaneously, decreases the excitability in the brain of the injured side and increases the excitability in the brain of the normal side. Simultaneous stimulation has been shown to be more effective. In a previous study, the positive effect on upper extremity function was confirmed by combining occupational therapy with tDCS, which applied a bipolar current to the same hemisphere at 2 mA for 20 min [44]. Therefore, combined rehabilitation programs for tDCS and motor skill learning are necessary for the recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients. Four studies used a tDCS intensity of 2 mA. Among them, an effect was found in three studies, except for a study using the anode and cathode current separately [39,40,41,42]. In a study using an intensity of 1 mA, motor shaping using brain–computer interaction technology was applied to M1 of the injured side, and both the experimental and control groups showed an effect on upper extremity function [45]. In addition, a study using an intensity of 1.5 mA could not confirm a significant difference between the experimental and control groups when applied to bilateral M1 [46]. That is, the upper extremity function is not in the difference in the intensity of tDCS, but in which intervention is applied in combination.
Previous studies have found that the combination of rTMS and upper extremity training leads to positive results [23,52,53,54]. In this study, physical therapies were most frequently combined with rTMS in three cases. In a previous study, the rTMS + PT experimental group and the sham rTMS + PT control group were treated five times a week for 3 weeks for 40 min, but there was no significant difference between the two groups [40]. In another study, three groups of rTMS + PT, rTMS + NMES, and PT were treated for 4 weeks, five times a week, and there was no significant difference between the three groups [47]. However, in a study conducted with two groups, rTMS + PT and sham rTMS + PT, there was a significant difference in wrist stiffness after a total of 10 sessions were performed for 30 min, three times a week [42]. The three studies had the same intensity and frequency at 90% MT and 1 Hz, respectively, and rTMS from 1200 to 1800 pulses was applied. However, the difference in the degree of brain damage in each study participant was found to be a difference in the results. A frequency of ≤1 Hz mostly created an inhibitory effect, and the aftereffect-size decreased as the intensity of rTMS increased, leading to an increased inhibitory effect [55]. In addition, the recovery of upper extremity function was confirmed in two studies that applied task-oriented treatment and action observation [51,53]. Therefore, the combination of an appropriate intensity and an appropriate intervention program can be an effective strategy for relieving spasticity and restoring upper extremity function.
The usefulness of noninvasive brain stimulation for cortical changes in the cerebral hemispheres has been demonstrated in numerous studies [23,50,51,52,53,54]. However, the type of intervention used to improve motor function can be an important factor. In two studies using tDCS that had an effect on upper extremity function, the same stimulation was performed with 2 mA for 20 min [44,48]. However, there was a difference in the stimulation of the ipsilesional M1 and the contralesional M1. The activation of M1 requires a patient-specific identification and approach, rather than a general protocol. For this, fMRI should be used to confirm the damaged state. In addition, three studies using rTMS that were effective in upper extremity function rehabilitation demonstrated that stimulation of the contralesional primary motor cortex using a low frequency of 1 Hz was able to restore upper extremity function and relieve stiffness [39,51,53]. However, MAS, which evaluates stiffness, has the subjective meaning of the evaluator; therefore, it seems difficult to make an accurate evaluation. Future studies should use tools that can more scientifically prove the evaluation of spasticity. Using rTMS, it was confirmed that excitability was altered and regulated in the cerebral cortex, but the optimal intensity could not be confirmed through the analyzed studies [39,51,53]. Further studies are required to elucidate this aspect. This study confirmed that noninvasive M1 stimulation should be used according to the patient’s individual characteristics in order to activate upper limb motor function. This can have different effects, even if the same NIBS protocol is used [44]. In addition, appropriate interventions should be used in combination to maximize the effects on upper limb motor function. Effective interventions induced voluntary movements in stroke patients.
In this study, rehabilitation interventions combined with rTMS and tDCS were compared to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions combined with NIBS. Recently, NIBS has been actively researched in the rehabilitation intervention process for stroke patients [12]. Among the 12 studies we reviewed, the interventions that were effective for upper limb motor function recovery were the task-oriented approach, occupational therapy, action observation, and wrist robot-assisted rehabilitation, and the intervention that was effective at relieving spasticity was physical therapy. However, in the process of analysis, it was difficult to determine the most appropriate brain stimulation method, because each study had different methods. Additionally, it was difficult to prove the effectiveness of a single treatment method because this study compared brain stimulation and fused rehabilitation treatments.
Study designs will be more accurate if they are conducted with a consistent setting for the control group in the future. Further studies investigating various rehabilitation therapies combined with NIBS for functional recovery after stroke should be conducted.

5. Conclusions

Herein, we systematically reviewed rehabilitation therapies combined with NIBS published during the last 10 years in an attempt to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation therapies combined with NIBS on upper limb motor function in stroke patients. FMA was the most commonly used assessment tool for evaluating upper extremity function in stroke patients. The task-oriented approach and occupational therapy were effective rehabilitation therapies combined with tDCS and rTMS. This result provides useful evidence for rehabilitation treatment interventions combined with NIBS in stroke patients.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.-S.H.; methodology, T.-H.C. and H.-S.H.; validation, T.-H.C.; developing the search strategy, T.-H.C. and H.-S.H.; conducting the search, H.-S.H.; quality assessment and data extraction, T.-H.C. and H.-S.H.; data curation, T.-H.C. and H.-S.H.; writing—original draft preparation, T.-H.C. and H.-S.H.; writing—review and editing, T.-H.C.; supervision, H.-S.H.; project administration, T.-H.C. and H.-S.H.; T.-H.C. and H.-S.H. contributed equally to this study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Konyang University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Bioethics Committee (KYU-2020-136-01) at Konyang University.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Konyang University Research Fund in 2020.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kim, J.-M.; Yi, C.-H.; Yang, H.-S.; Cynn, H.-S. Effect of Posterior Leaf Spring on Standing Balance in Patients with Hemiplegia. Phys. Ther. Korea 2001, 8, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
  2. Miller, E.L.; Murray, L.; Richards, L.; Zorowitz, R.D.; Bakas, T.; Clark, P.; Billinger, S.A. Comprehensive Overview of Nursing and Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Care of the Stroke Patient: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association. Stroke 2010, 41, 2402–2448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Veerbeek, J.M.; Kwakkel, G.; van Wegen, E.E.; Ket, J.C.; Heymans, M.W. Early Prediction of Outcome of Activities of Daily Living after Stroke: A Systematic Review. Stroke 2011, 42, 1482–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Di Lazzaro, V.; Pilato, F.; Dileone, M.; Profice, P.; Capone, F.; Ranieri, F.; Musumeci, G.; Cianfoni, A.; Pasqualetti, P.; Tonali, P.A. Modulating Cortical Excitability in Acute Stroke: A Repetitive TMS Study. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2008, 119, 715–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Harris-Love, M.L.; Morton, S.M.; Perez, M.A.; Cohen, L.G. Mechanisms of Short-Term Training-Induced Reaching Improvement in Severely Hemiparetic Stroke Patients: A TMS Study. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2011, 25, 398–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Milstein, D.M.; Dorris, M.C. The Influence of Expected Value on Saccadic Preparation. J. Neurosci. 2007, 27, 4810–4818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Nowak, D.A.; Grefkes, C.; Ameli, M.; Fink, G.R. Interhemispheric Competition after Stroke: Brain Stimulation to Enhance Recovery of Function of the Affected Hand. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2009, 23, 641–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Adeyemo, B.O.; Simis, M.; Macea, D.D.; Fregni, F. Systematic Review of Parameters of Stimulation, Clinical Trial Design Characteristics, and Motor Outcomes in Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation in Stroke. Front. Psychiatry 2012, 3, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Bashir, S.; Yoo, W.-K. Cheap Technology like Transcrinal Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) Could Help in Stroke Rehabilitation in South Asia. Basic Clin. Neurosci. 2013, 4, 188–189. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  10. Brem, A.-K.; Unterburger, E.; Speight, I.; Jäncke, L. Treatment of Visuospatial Neglect with Biparietal TDCS and Cognitive Training: A Single-Case Study. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. de Aguiar, V.; Paolazzi, C.L.; Miceli, G. TDCS in Post-Stroke Aphasia: The Role of Stimulation Parameters, Behavioral Treatment and Patient Characteristics. Cortex 2015, 63, 296–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Salazar, A.P.; Cimolin, V.; Schifino, G.P.; Rech, K.D.; Marchese, R.R.; Pagnussat, A.S. Bi-Cephalic Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Functional Electrical Stimulation for Upper-Limb Stroke Rehabilitation: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2020, 63, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kang, S.-Y. Clinical Applications of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological Disorders. J. Korean Neurol. Assoc. 2017, 35, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wassermann, E.M.; Grafman, J. Recharging Cognition with DC Brain Polarization. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005, 9, 503–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Furlan, L.; Conforto, A.B.; Cohen, L.G.; Sterr, A. Upper Limb Immobilisation: A Neural Plasticity Model with Relevance to Poststroke Motor Rehabilitation. Neural Plast. 2015, 2016, e8176217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Jalinous, R. Technical and Practical Aspects of Magnetic Nerve Stimulation. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. Off. Publ. Am. Electroencephalogr. Soc. 1991, 8, 10–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Romero, J.R.; Anschel, D.; Sparing, R.; Gangitano, M.; Pascual-Leone, A. Subthreshold Low Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Selectively Decreases Facilitation in the Motor Cortex. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2002, 113, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fitzgerald, P.B.; Brown, T.L.; Daskalakis, Z.J.; Chen, R.; Kulkarni, J. Intensity-Dependent Effects of 1 Hz RTMS on Human Corticospinal Excitability. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2002, 113, 1136–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Khedr, E.M.; Rothwell, J.C.; Ahmed, M.A.; Shawky, O.A.; Farouk, M. Modulation of Motor Cortical Excitability Following Rapid-Rate Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2007, 118, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kim, Y.-H.; Park, J.-W.; Ko, M.-H.; Jang, S.H.; Lee, P.K. Facilitative Effect of High Frequency Subthreshold Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Complex Sequential Motor Learning in Humans. Neurosci. Lett. 2004, 367, 181–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Di Lorenzo, C.; Tavernese, E.; Lepre, C.; Mangone, M.; Currà, A.; Pierelli, F.; Santilli, V.; Paoloni, M. Influence of RTMS over the Left Primary Motor Cortex on Initiation and Performance of a Simple Movement Executed with the Contralateral Arm in Healthy Volunteers. Exp. Brain Res. 2013, 224, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kim, J.H.; Jung, M.G. Effect of Task Oriented Training Including Aftereffect After Applying RTMS on Hand Spasticity in Stroke Patients. J. Korean Soc. Neurother. 2017, 21, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chang, W.H.; Kim, Y.-H.; Yoo, W.-K.; Goo, K.-H.; Park, C.; Kim, S.T.; Pascual-Leone, A. RTMS with Motor Training Modulates Cortico-Basal Ganglia-Thalamocortical Circuits in Stroke Patients. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 2012, 30, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Stagg, C.J.; Nitsche, M.A. Physiological Basis of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation. Neuroscientist 2011, 17, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rushworth, M.F.S.; Johansen-Berg, H.; Göbel, S.M.; Devlin, J.T. The Left Parietal and Premotor Cortices: Motor Attention and Selection. Neuroimage 2003, 20, S89–S100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hummel, F.C.; Cohen, L.G. Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation: A New Strategy to Improve Neurorehabilitation after Stroke? Lancet Neurol. 2006, 5, 708–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hummel, F.; Cohen, L.G. Improvement of Motor Function with Noninvasive Cortical Stimulation in a Patient with Chronic Stroke. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2005, 19, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Stagg, C.J.; Bachtiar, V.; O’Shea, J.; Allman, C.; Bosnell, R.A.; Kischka, U.; Matthews, P.M.; Johansen-Berg, H. Cortical Activation Changes Underlying Stimulation-Induced Behavioural Gains in Chronic Stroke. Brain 2012, 135, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fregni, F.; Boggio, P.; Mansur, C.G.; Wagner, T.; Ferreira, M.J.L.; Lima, M.; Rigonatti, S.P.; Marcolin, M.A.; Freedman, S.D.; Nitsche, M.A.; et al. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Unaffected Hemisphere in Stroke Patients. Neuroreport 2005, 16, 1551–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zimerman, M.; Heise, K.F.; Hoppe, J.; Cohen, L.G.; Gerloff, C.; Hummel, F.C. Modulation of Training by Single-Session Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to the Intact Motor Cortex Enhances Motor Skill Acquisition of the Paretic Hand. Stroke 2012, 43, 2185–2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. An, T.; Kwon, H.; Lee, S.; Kim, H. The Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Balance, Fall Efficacy, and Fall-Related Fitness in Stroke Patient’s through a Virtual Reality Rehabilitation Program. J. Korean Soc. Integr. Med. 2019, 7, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hatem, S.M.; Saussez, G.; Della Faille, M.; Prist, V.; Zhang, X.; Dispa, D.; Bleyenheuft, Y. Rehabilitation of Motor Function after Stroke: A Multiple Systematic Review Focused on Techniques to Stimulate Upper Extremity Recovery. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2016, 10, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Menezes, I.S.; Cohen, L.G.; Mello, E.A.; Machado, A.G.; Peckham, P.H.; Anjos, S.M.; Siqueira, I.L.; Conti, J.; Plow, E.B.; Conforto, A.B. Combined Brain and Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in Chronic Stroke Patients with Moderate to Severe Motor Impairment. Neuromodul. Technol. Neural Interface 2018, 21, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hsu, W.-Y.; Cheng, C.-H.; Liao, K.-K.; Lee, I.-H.; Lin, Y.-Y. Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Motor Functions in Patients with Stroke: A Meta-Analysis. Stroke 2012, 43, 1849–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Marquez, J.; van Vliet, P.; McElduff, P.; Lagopoulos, J.; Parsons, M. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS): Does It Have Merit in Stroke Rehabilitation? A Systematic Review. Int. J. Stroke 2015, 10, 306–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Elsner, B.; Kugler, J.; Pohl, M.; Mehrholz, J. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) for Improving Function and Activities of Daily Living in Patients after Stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013, 11, 1–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hao, Z.; Wang, D.; Zeng, Y.; Liu, M. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Improving Function after Stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. de Morton, N.A. The PEDro Scale Is a Valid Measure of the Methodological Quality of Clinical Trials: A Demographic Study. Aust. J. Physiother. 2009, 55, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Hesse, S.; Waldner, A.; Mehrholz, J.; Tomelleri, C.; Pohl, M.; Werner, C. Combined Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Robot-Assisted Arm Training in Subacute Stroke Patients: An Exploratory, Randomized Multicenter Trial. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2011, 25, 838–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Seniów, J.; Bilik, M.; Leśniak, M.; Waldowski, K.; Iwański, S.; Członkowska, A. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined With Physiotherapy in Rehabilitation of Poststroke Hemiparesis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2012, 26, 1072–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, R.-Y.; Tseng, H.-Y.; Liao, K.-K.; Wang, C.-J.; Lai, K.-L.; Yang, Y.-R. RTMS Combined with Task-Oriented Training to Improve Symmetry of Interhemispheric Corticomotor Excitability and Gait Performance After Stroke: A Randomized Trial. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2012, 26, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Galvão, S.C.B.; dos Santos, R.B.C.; dos Santos, P.B.; Cabral, M.E.; Monte-Silva, K. Efficacy of Coupling Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Physical Therapy to Reduce Upper-Limb Spasticity in Patients With Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2014, 95, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Viana, R.T.; Laurentino, G.E.; Souza, R.J.; Fonseca, J.B.; Silva Filho, E.M.; Dias, S.N.; Teixeira-Salmela, L.F.; Monte-Silva, K.K. Effects of the Addition of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Virtual Reality Therapy after Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. NeuroRehabilitation 2014, 34, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ilić, N.V.; Dubljanin-Raspopović, E.; Nedeljković, U.; Tomanović-Vujadinović, S.; Milanović, S.D.; Petronić-Marković, I.; Ilić, T.V. Effects of Anodal TDCS and Occupational Therapy on Fine Motor Skill Deficits in Patients with Chronic Stroke. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 2016, 34, 935–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Hong, X.; Lu, Z.K.; Teh, I.; Nasrallah, F.A.; Teo, W.P.; Ang, K.K.; Phua, K.S.; Guan, C.; Chew, E.; Chuang, K.-H. Brain Plasticity Following MI-BCI Training Combined with TDCS in a Randomized Trial in Chronic Subcortical Stroke Subjects: A Preliminary Study. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Koh, C.-L.; Lin, J.-H.; Jeng, J.-S.; Huang, S.-L.; Hsieh, C.-L. Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation with Sensory Modulation on Stroke Motor Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2017, 98, 2477–2484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Tosun, A.; Türe, S.; Aşkın, A.; Yardimci, E.U.; Demirdal, S.U.; Kurt Incesu, T.; Tosun, O.; Kocyigit, H.; Akhan, G.; Gelal, F.M. Effects of Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation on Upper Extremity Motor Recovery in the Early Period after Stroke: A Preliminary Study. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 2017, 24, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mazzoleni, S.; Tran, V.-D.; Dario, P.; Posteraro, F. Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) Combined With Wrist Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation on Motor Recovery in Subacute Stroke Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2019, 27, 1458–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Noh, J.S.; Lim, J.H.; Choi, T.W.; Jang, S.G.; Pyun, S.-B. Effects and Safety of Combined RTMS and Action Observation for Recovery of Function in the Upper Extremities in Stroke Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 2019, 37, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Russo, C.; Souza Carneiro, M.I.; Bolognini, N.; Fregni, F. Safety Review of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Stroke. Neuromodul. Technol. Neural Interface 2017, 20, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Lefebvre, S.; Dricot, L.; Laloux, P.; Desfontaines, P.; Evrard, F.; Peeters, A.; Jamart, J.; Vandermeeren, Y. Increased Functional Connectivity One Week after Motor Learning and TDCS in Stroke Patients. Neuroscience 2017, 340, 424–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Abo, M.; Kakuda, W.; Momosaki, R.; Harashima, H.; Kojima, M.; Watanabe, S.; Sato, T.; Yokoi, A.; Umemori, T.; Sasanuma, J. Randomized, Multicenter, Comparative Study of NEURO versus CIMT in Poststroke Patients with Upper Limb Hemiparesis: The NEURO-VERIFY Study. Int. J. Stroke 2014, 9, 607–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Avenanti, A.; Coccia, M.; Ladavas, E.; Provinciali, L.; Ceravolo, M.G. Low-Frequency RTMS Promotes Use-Dependent Motor Plasticity in Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Trial. Neurology 2012, 78, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Etoh, S.; Noma, T.; Ikeda, K.; Jonoshita, Y.; Ogata, A.; Matsumoto, S.; Shimodozono, M.; Kawahira, K. Effects of Repetitive Trascranial Magnetic Stimulation on Repetitive Facilitation Exercises of the Hemiplegic Hand in Chronic Stroke Patients. J. Rehabil. Med. 2013, 45, 843–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Choi, K.-M.; Shin, D.; Chae, J.-H. The Clinical Applications and the Electroencephalogram Effects of Repeated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. Korean J. Psychopharmacol. 2013, 24, 160–171. [Google Scholar]
Brainsci 12 00994 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Brainsci 12 00994 g001
Table
Table 1. PEDro scale for research.
Table 1. PEDro scale for research.
No.Author (Year)1234567891011TotalQuality
1Hesse (2011) [39]YYYYYYYNNNN6Good
2Seniów (2012) [40]YYYYYYYNNNN6Good
3Wang (2012) [41]YYYYYYYYYYY10Excellent
4Barros Galvão (2014) [42]YYYYYYYYYYY10Excellent
5Viana (2014) [43]YYYYYYYYYYY10Excellent
6Ilić (2016) [44]YYYYYYYYYYY10Excellent
7Hong (2017) [45]YYYYYYYNNNN6Good
8Koh (2017) [46]YYYYYYYNNNN6Good
9Tosun (2017) [47]YYYYYYYYYNY9Excellent
10Kim (2018) [22]YYYYNNYYYYY8Excellent
11Mazzoleni (2019) [48]YYYYYNNYYYY8Excellent
12Noh (2019) [49]YYYYYNNYYYY8Excellent
Table
Table 2. General characteristic of the reviewed studies.
Table 2. General characteristic of the reviewed studies.
No.Author (Year)Participant
(M/F)		Age
(Mean)		Hemiparesis
(Lt./Rt.)		Duration
(Months)
EGCGEGCGEGCGEGCG
1Hesse (2011) [39]20/12 a
18/14 b		21/1163.9 a
65.4 b		65.618/14 a
17/15 b		16/160.79 a
0.88 b		0.88
2Seniów (2012) [40]12/814/663.563.410/107/131.391.26
3Wang (2012) [41]8/47/562.964.98/46/624.322.3
4Barros Galvão (2014) [42]6/47/357.464.63/77/347.858.9
5Viana (2014) [43]9/17/356.055.01/90/1031.935.0
6Ilić (2016) [44]10/47/558.362.01/131/1141.037.3
7Hong (2017) [45]5/48/152.756.41/81/833.833.3
8Koh (2017) [46]8/67/455.356.98/66/515.813.4
9Tosun (2017) [47]6/3 a
4/3 b		5/457.6 a
56.0 b		61.33/6 a
4/3 b		5/41.64 a
1.98 b		1.57
10Kim (2018) [22]4/44/851.074.12/65/71.631.75
11Mazzoleni (2019) [48]8/127/1267.568.79/118/11NINI
12Noh (2019) [49]4/76/566.457.46/56/51.170.75
a: Experimental Group 1, b: Experimental Group 2, CG: Control Group, EG: Experimental Group, F; Female, M: Male, NI: No information available.
Table
Table 3. Intervention overview.
Table 3. Intervention overview.
No.ReferencesIntervention
TypeIntensity/Frequency/
Pulse/Duration		Positions of the ElectrodesCombined Therapy
1Hesse et al.
(2011) [36]		tDCS2 mA/#
#/20 min		Hand area of ipsilesional M1 a
Hand area of contralesional M1 b		a-tDCS + AT a
c-tDCS + AT b
2Seniów et al. (2012) [50]rTMS90% MT/1 Hz/
1800 pulse/30 min		Contralesional M1rTMS + PT
3Wang et al.
(2012) [51]		rTMS90% MT/1 Hz/
600 pulse/10 min		Contralesional M1rTMS + TOT
4Barros Galvão et al. (2014) [39]rTMS90% MT/1 Hz/
1500 pulse/#		Contralesional M1rTMS + PT
5Viana et al.
(2014) [52]		tDCS2 mA/#
#/13 min		M1tDCS + VR
6Ilić et al.
(2016) [38]		tDCS2 mA/#
#/20 min		Ipsilesional M1a-tDCS + OT
7Hong et al.
(2017) [48]		tDCS1 mA/#
#/20 min		Ipsilesional M1tDCS + MI-BCI
8Koh et al.
(2017) [44]		tDCS1.5 mA/#
#/#		Bilateral primary motor cortex (M1)tDCS + SM
9Tosun et al.
(2017) [45]		rTMS90% MT/1 Hz/
1200 pulse/20 min		M1rTMS + PT a
rTMS + NMES b
10Kim et al.
(2017) [19]		rTMS90% MT/20 Hz/
1500 pulse/15 min		M1HFrTMS + TOMT
11Mazzoleni et al. (2019) [37]tDCS2 mA/#
#/20 min		M1tDCS + Wrist RAR
12Noh et al.
(2019) [53]		rTMS120% MT/1 Hz/
#/20 min		Contralesional M1rTMS + AO
a: Experimental Group 1, b: Experimental Group 2, tDCS: transcranial direct current stimulation, rTMS: repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, M1: primary motor cortex, a-tDCS: anodal transcranial direct current stimulation, c-tDCS: cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation, AT: arm robot, PT: physical therapy, TOT: task-oriented treatment, VR: virtual reality, OT: occupational therapy, MI-BCI: Brain-computer interface-assisted motor imagery, SM: Sensory Modulation, NMES: neuromuscular electrical stimulation, TOMT: task-oriented mirror therapy, Wrist RAR: Wrist Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation, AO: action observation.
Table
Table 4. Study specific results.
Table 4. Study specific results.
No.Outcome
Time of InterventionAssessment and Result (EG1/(EG2)/CG)
140 min/d, 6 weeksFMA (−/−/−)/BBT (−/−/−)/MAS (−/−/−)/MRC (−/−/−)/BI (−/−/−)
240 min/d, 5 d/w, 3 weeksWMFT-FAS (+/+)/WMFT-TIME (−/+)/FMA (+/+)/NIHSS (+/+)
330 min/d, 10 timesFMA+/MEP+
430 min/d, 3 d/w, 10 timesWrist MAS+ (+/−)/UL-FMA (+/+)/FIM (+/−)/Wrist ROM (+/−)/SSQOL (−/+)
53 d/w, 5 weeks, 15 timesUL-FMA (+/+)/WMFT-TIME (+/+)/WMFT-FAS (+/+)/MAS (−/−)/
Hand strength (+/+)/ SSQOL (+/+)/SSQOL-UL+ (−/−)
645 min/d, 2 weeks, 10 timesmJTHFT (+/−)/UL-FMA (−/−)/Hand strength (−/−)
740 min/d, 2 weeksCBF (+/+)/FMA (+/+)
830 min/d, 3 d/w, 8 weeksUL-FMA−/MAS−/ARAT−/BI−
95 d/w, 4 weeks, 20 timesBRS (+/+/+)/FMA (+/+/+)/BI (+/+/+)/MAS (−/−/−)
105 d/w, 2 weeksHand strength (+/+)/Pinch grip (+/+)/BBT (+/+)
115 d/w, 6 weeksFMA (+/+)/MAS (−/−)/MI (+/+)/BBT (+/−)
121 h BID, 5 d/wBRS (−/+)/FMA (+/+)/MFT distal (+/−)/Hand strength (+/−)
+: Significant differences between groups, −: No significant differences between groups +: Significant changes before and after the experiment, −: No significant changes before and after the experiment, FMA: Fugl-Meyer Assessment, BBT: Box and block test, MAS: Modified Ashworth Scale, MRC: Medical Research Council Sum Score, BI Barthel Index, WMFT–FAS: functional ability scale of the Wolf Motor Function Test, WMFT–TIME: performance time of the Wolf Motor Function Test, NIHSS: The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, MEP: motor evoked potential, UL-FMA: upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer assessment, FIM: functional independence measure, ROM: Range of motion, SSQOL: Stroke specific quality of life, SSQOL-UL = Stroke specific quality of life-Upper limb, mJTHFT: modified Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test, CBF: cerebral blood flow, ARAT: Action Research Arm Test, BRS: Brunnstrom stage, MI: motricity index, MFT: Manual Function Test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cha, T.-H.; Hwang, H.-S. Rehabilitation Interventions Combined with Noninvasive Brain Stimulation on Upper Limb Motor Function in Stroke Patients. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 994. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12080994

AMA Style

Cha T-H, Hwang H-S. Rehabilitation Interventions Combined with Noninvasive Brain Stimulation on Upper Limb Motor Function in Stroke Patients. Brain Sciences. 2022; 12(8):994. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12080994

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cha, Tae-Hyun, and Ho-Sung Hwang. 2022. "Rehabilitation Interventions Combined with Noninvasive Brain Stimulation on Upper Limb Motor Function in Stroke Patients" Brain Sciences 12, no. 8: 994. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12080994

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop