Non-invasive brain stimulation for fine motor improvement after stroke: a meta-analysis

[en] The aim of this study was to determine whether non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques improve fine motor performance in stroke. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SciELO and OpenGrey for randomized clinical trials on NIBS for fine motor performance in stroke patients and healthy participants. We computed Hedges’ g for active and sham groups, pooled data as random-effects models and performed sensitivity analysis on chronicity, montage, frequency of stimulation and risk of bias. Twenty-nine studies (351 patients and 152 healthy subjects) were reviewed. Effect sizes in stroke populations for transcranial direct current stimulation and repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation were 0.31 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.08–0.55; P = 0.010; Tau2, 0.09; I2, 34%; Q, 18.23; P = 0.110] and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.00–0.92; P = 0.05; Tau2, 0.38; I2, 67%; Q, 30.45; P = 0.007). The effect size of non-dominant healthy hemisphere transcranial direct current stimulation on non-dominant hand function was 1.25 (95% CI, 0.09–2.41; P = 0.04; Tau2, 1.26; I2, 93%; Q, 40.27; P < 0.001). Our results show that NIBS is associated with gains in fine motor performance in chronic stroke patients and healthy subjects. This supports the effects of NIBS on motor learning and encourages investigation to optimize their effects in clinical and research settings. © 2018 EAN

Disciplines :

Neurology

Author, co-author :

O'Brien, A. T.; Neuromodulation Center, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States

Bertolucci, F.; Neuromodulation Center, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States, Department of Neuroscience and Neurorehabilitation, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

Torrealba-Acosta, G.; Department of Neurology, Neuroscience Research Center, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica

Huerta, R.; Department of Medicine, The National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

Fregni, F.; Neuromodulation Center, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States

Thibaut, Aurore ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Consciousness-Coma Science Group

Language :

English

Title :

Non-invasive brain stimulation for fine motor improvement after stroke: a meta-analysis

Publication date :

2018

Journal title :

European Journal of Neurology

ISSN :

1351-5101

eISSN :

1468-1331

Publisher :

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume :

Issue :

Pages :

1017-1026

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Available on ORBi :

since 27 December 2020

Statistics

Number of views

390 (4 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

926 (4 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

OpenAlex citations

Bibliography

World Health Organization. Global health estimates: deaths by cause, age, sex and country, 2000–2015. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2015. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/estimates/en/index1.html. (accessed 26/01/2017)
Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 741–754.
Bo Lee K, Hoon Lim S, Hoon Kim K, et al. Six-month functional recovery of stroke patients: a multi-time-point study. Int J Rehabil Res 2015; 38: 173–180.
Beebe JA, Lang CE. Active range of motion predicts upper extremity function 3 months after stroke. Stroke 2009; 40: 1772–1779.
Nijland RHM, Van Wegen E, Harmeling-Van Der Wel BC, Kwakkel G. Presence of finger extension and shoulder abduction within 72 hours after stroke predicts functional recovery: early prediction of functional outcome after stroke: the EPOS cohort study. Stroke 2010; 41: 745–750.
Parker VM, Wade DT, Lanoton HR, Wade DT. Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery. Int Rehabil Med 1986; 8: 69–73.
Langton-Hewer R. The hemiplegic arm after stroke: measurement and recovery. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1983; 46: 521–524.
Olsen TS. Arm and leg paresis as outcome predictors in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 1990; 21: 247–251.
Sunderland A, Fletcher D, Bradley L, Tinson D, Hewer RL, Wade DT. Enhanced physical therapy for arm function after stroke: a one year follow up study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994; 57: 856–858.
Nakayama H, Jørgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 394–398.
Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Vive-Larsen J, Støier M, Olsen TS. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: time course of recovery. The Copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995; 76: 406–412.
Warlow C, Van GJ, Dennis M. Stroke: practical management. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1188–1189.
Wang YC, Magasi SR, Bohannon RW, et al. Assessing dexterity function: a comparison of two alternatives for the NIH toolbox. J Hand Ther 2011; 24: 313–321.
Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ. Predicting activities after stroke: what is clinically relevant? Int J Stroke 2013; 8: 25–32.
Lefaucheur J-P, Andre-Obadia N, Antal A, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clin Neurophysiol 2014; 125: 2150–2206.
Lefaucheur J-P, Antal A, Ayache SS, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Clin Neurophysiol 2016; 128: 56–92.
Lüdemann-Podubecká J, Bösl K, Nowak DA. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for motor recovery of the upper limb after stroke. Prog Brain Res 2015; 218: 281–311.
Le Q, Qu Y, Tao Y, Zhu S. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on hand function recovery and excitability of the motor cortex after stroke: a meta-analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 93: 1–9.
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; CD009645.
Hao Z, Wang D, Zeng Y, Liu M. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for improving function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; CD008862.
Kang N, Summers JJ, Cauraugh JH. Transcranial direct current stimulation facilitates motor learning post-stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016; 87: 345–355.
Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC, et al. Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; CD010820.
Tedesco Triccas L, Burridge JH, Hughes AM, et al. Multiple sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation and upper extremity rehabilitation in stroke: a review and meta-analysis. Clin Neurophysiol 2016; 127: 946–955.
O'Brien AT, Torrealba G, Huerta R, Thibaut A. Data from: does non-invasive brain stimulation modify hand dexterity? Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dryad Digit Repos 2017; https://10.5061/dryad.hq08g.
O'Brien AT, Torrealba G, Huerta R, Thibaut A. Does non-invasive brain stimulation modify hand dexterity? Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e015669.
De Gennaro L, Cristiani R, Bertini M, et al. Handedness is mainly associated with an asymmetry of corticospinal excitability and not of transcallosal inhibition. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115: 1305–1312.
Di Pino G, Pellegrino G, Assenza G, et al. Modulation of brain plasticity in stroke: a novel model for neurorehabilitation. Nat Rev Neurol 2014; 10: 597–608.
Wilson JTL, Hareendran A, Grant M, et al. Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: use of a structured interview to assign grades on the modified Rankin Scale. Stroke 2002; 33: 2243–2246.
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.
Dayan E, Cohen LG. Neuroplasticity subserving motor skill learning. Neuron 2011; 72: 443–454.
Hosp JA, Luft AR. Cortical plasticity during motor learning and recovery after ischemic stroke. Neural Plast 2011; 2011: 871296.
Jenkins WM, Merzenich MM. Reorganization of neocortical representations after brain injury: a neurophysiological model of the bases of recovery from stroke. Prog Brain Res 1987; 71: 249–266.
Wall JT, Xu J, Wang X. Human brain plasticity: an emerging view of the multiple substrates and mechanisms that cause cortical changes and related sensory dysfunctions after injuries of sensory inputs from the body. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 2002; 39: 181–215.
Dalise S, Ambrosio F, Modo M. Brain plasticity and recovery in preclinical models of stroke. Arch Ital Biol 2014; 152: 190–215.
Chen JL, Lin WC, Cha JW, So PT, Kubota Y, Nedivi E. Structural basis for the role of inhibition in facilitating adult brain plasticity. Nat Neurosci 2011; 14: 587–594.
Gerloff C, Bushara K, Sailer A, et al. Multimodal imaging of brain reorganization in motor areas of the contralesional hemisphere of well recovered patients after capsular stroke. Brain 2006; 129: 791–808.
Thibaut A, Simis M, Battistella LR, et al. Using brain oscillations and corticospinal excitability to understand and predict post-stroke motor function. Front Neurol 2017; 8: 1–8.
Schulz R, Braass H, Liuzzi G, et al. White matter integrity of premotor-motor connections is associated with motor output in chronic stroke patients. Neuroimage Clin 2015; 7: 82–86.
Schaechter JD, Fricker ZP, Perdue KL, et al. Microstructural status of ipsilesional and contralesional corticospinal tract correlates with motor skill in chronic stroke patients. Hum Brain Mapp 2009; 30: 3461–3474.
Milot M-H, Spencer SJ, Chan V, et al. Corticospinal excitability as a predictor of functional gains at the affected upper limb following robotic training in chronic stroke survivors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2014; 28: 819–827.
Riley JD, Le V, Der-Yeghiaian L, et al. Anatomy of stroke injury predicts gains from therapy. Stroke 2011; 42: 421–426.
Salatino A, Berra E, Troni W, et al. Behavioral and neuroplastic effects of low-frequency rTMS of the unaffected hemisphere in a chronic stroke patient: a concomitant TMS and fMRI study. Neurocase 2014; 20: 615–626.
Ameli M, Grefkes C, Kemper F, et al. Differential effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over ipsilesional primary motor cortex in cortical and subcortical middle cerebral artery stroke. Ann Neurol 2009; 66: 298–309.
Bestmann S, Baudewig J, Siebner HR, Rothwell JC, Frahm J. Subthreshold high-frequency TMS of human primary motor cortex modulates interconnected frontal motor areas as detected by interleaved fMRI-TMS. NeuroImage 2003; 20: 1685–1696.
Stagg CJ, Bachtiar V, O'Shea J, et al. Cortical activation changes underlying stimulation-induced behavioural gains in chronic stroke. Brain 2012; 135: 276–284.
Ang KK, Guan C, Phua KS, et al. Facilitating effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor imagery brain-computer interface with robotic feedback for stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 96: S79–S87.
Kasashima Y, Fujiwara T, Matsushika Y, et al. Modulation of event-related desynchronization during motor imagery with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with chronic hemiparetic stroke. Exp Brain Res 2012; 221: 263–268.
Ward NS. Restoring brain function after stroke—bridging the gap between animals and humans. Nat Rev Neurol 2017; 13: 244–255.
Bolognini N, Vallar G, Casati C, et al. Neurophysiological and behavioral effects of tDCS combined with constraint-induced movement therapy in poststroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2011; 25: 819–829.
Straudi S, Fregni F, Martinuzzi C, Pavarelli C, Salvioli S, Basaglia N. tDCS and robotics on upper limb stroke rehabilitation: effect modification by stroke duration and type of stroke. Biomed Res Int 2016; 2016: 5068127.
Bolognini N, Pascual-Leone A, Fregni F. Using non-invasive brain stimulation to augment motor training-induced plasticity. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2009; 6: 8.
Wang QM, Cui H, Han SJ, et al. Combination of transcranial direct current stimulation and methylphenidate in subacute stroke. Neurosci Lett 2014; 569: 6–11.
Zeiler SR, Krakauer JW. The interaction between training and plasticity in the poststroke brain. Curr Opin Neurol 2013; 26: 609–616.
van Kordelaar J, van Wegen E, Kwakkel G. Impact of time on quality of motor control of the paretic upper limb after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 95: 338–344.
Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Twisk J. Impact of time on improvement of outcome after stroke. Stroke 2006; 37: 2348–2353.
Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 313–319.
O'Brien AT, Amorim R, Rushmore RJ, et al. Motor cortex neurostimulation technologies for chronic post-stroke pain: implications of tissue damage on stimulation currents. Front Hum Neurosci 2016; 10: 545.
Wagner T, Fregni F, Fecteau S, Grodzinsky A, Zahn M, Pascual-Leone A. Transcranial direct current stimulation: a computer-based human model study. NeuroImage 2007; 35: 1113–1124.