ABSTRACT
We report a review of Pubmed (Medline), CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus to test the effectiveness of the combined application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation in the improvement of different functional variables of the upper limb in people with stroke. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility and evaluated the quality of the studies. Five articles were included in the final review according to the inclusion criteria: Most show statistically significant differences in motor function improvement in favor of the experimental group, but not in activity. Due to the heterogeneity of the observed studies, the results should be interpreted with caution-more high-quality studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of these interventions in different stages of stroke patients.
ABSTRACT
Stroke is the third leading cause of disability in the world, and effective rehabilitation is needed to improve lost functionality post-stroke. In this regard, robot-assisted therapy (RAT) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are promising rehabilitative approaches that have been shown to be effective in motor recovery. In the past decade, they have been combined to study whether their combination produces adjuvant and greater effects on stroke recovery. The aim of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of the combined use of RATs and tDCS in the motor recovery of the upper extremities after stroke. After reviewing 227 studies, we included nine randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in this study. We analysed the methodological quality of all nine RCTs in the meta-analysis. The analysed outcomes were deficit severity, hand dexterity, spasticity, and activity. The addition of tDCS to RAT produced a negligible additional benefit on the effects of upper limb function (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.12), hand dexterity (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.46), spasticity (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.32), and activity (SMD 0.66, 95% CI -1.82 to 3.14). There is no evidence of an additional effect when adding tDCS to RAT for upper limb recovery after stroke. Combining tDCS with RAT does not improve upper limb motor function, spasticity, and/or hand dexterity. Future research should focus on the use of RAT protocols in which the patient is given an active role, focusing on the intensity and dosage, and determining how certain variables influence the success of RAT.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with end-effector robot-assisted treatment (RAT) on upper limb function, spasticity, and hand dexterity in chronic stroke patients. DESIGN: This was a prospective, double-blind randomized trial with 20 equally allocated stroke patients. The experimental group received dual-tDCS (anode over affected M1, cathode over contralateral M1) alongside RAT, while the control group received sham tDCS with the same electrode placement + RAT. Each patient underwent 20 combined tDCS and RAT sessions. The primary outcome measure was the Fugl Meyer Upper Limb motor score (mFM-UL), with secondary outcomes including AMADEO® kinematic measures, Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Assessments were conducted at baseline, post-rehabilitation, and three months later. RESULTS: Combining bilateral tDCS with RAT did not yield additional improvements in mFM-UL, FIM, or ARAT scores among stroke patients. However, the real tDCS group showed enhanced finger flexion in the affected hand based on AMADEO® kinematic measures. CONCLUSION: The addition of tDCS to RAT did not result in significant overall functional improvements in chronic stroke patients. However, a benefit was observed in finger flexion of the affected hand.
ABSTRACT
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of cervical exercise, motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) of cervical exercise actions on conditioned pain modulation and pressure pain thresholds. The second objective was to assess the effects of these interventions on cervical motor activity (ranges of motion and muscle endurance), attention, and the ability to generate motor images.Study design: Single-blinded randomized controlled trial.Materials and methods: Fifty-four healthy subjects were randomly assigned to each group. Response conditioned pain modulation, pressure pain threshold, were the main variables. The secondary outcome measures included, cervical range of motion, Neck flexor endurance test, mental movement representation associated and psychosocial variables.Results: All groups showed significant differences in time factor for all evaluated variables (p < .01) except pressure pain threshold over the tibial region. The post hoc analysis revealed significant within-group differences in the AE and AO groups in conditioned pain modulation (p < .05), with medium effect size in time [AE (d -0.61); AO (d -0.74)].Conclusion: The results showed that within-group changes in conditioned pain modulation, cervical muscle endurance, and attention where founded only in the AE and AO groups. Variations in pain thresholds at pressure in the trapezium area were also obtained in the three groups. Changes in the ranges of flexion-extension and rotation movement were presented exclusively in the exercise group, and in the capacity to generate motor images only in the AO group. However, there was no difference in the pressure pain threshold over the tibial region.