Publication: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation in motor rehabilitation after stroke: An update
Issued Date
2015-09-01
Resource Type
ISSN
18770665
18770657
18770657
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-84941996143
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. Vol.58, No.4 (2015), 220-224
Suggested Citation
W. Klomjai, A. Lackmy-Vallée, N. Roche, P. Pradat-Diehl, V. Marchand-Pauvert, R. Katz Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation in motor rehabilitation after stroke: An update. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. Vol.58, No.4 (2015), 220-224. doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2015.05.006 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/36342
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation in motor rehabilitation after stroke: An update
Abstract
© 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. Stroke is a leading cause of adult motor disability. The number of stroke survivors is increasing in industrialized countries, and despite available treatments used in rehabilitation, the recovery of motor functions after stroke is often incomplete. Studies in the 1980s showed that non-invasive brain stimulation (mainly repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS] and transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS]) could modulate cortical excitability and induce plasticity in healthy humans. These findings have opened the way to the therapeutic use of the 2 techniques for stroke. The mechanisms underlying the cortical effect of rTMS and tDCS differ. This paper summarizes data obtained in healthy subjects and gives a general review of the use of rTMS and tDCS in stroke patients with altered motor functions. From 1988 to 2012, approximately 1400 publications were devoted to the study of non-invasive brain stimulation in humans. However, for stroke patients with limb motor deficit, only 141 publications have been devoted to the effects of rTMS and 132 to those of tDCS. The Cochrane review devoted to the effects of rTMS found 19 randomized controlled trials involving 588 patients, and that devoted to tDCS found 18 randomized controlled trials involving 450 patients. Without doubt, rTMS and tDCS contribute to physiological and pathophysiological studies in motor control. However, despite the increasing number of studies devoted to the possible therapeutic use of non-invasive brain stimulation to improve motor recovery after stroke, further studies will be necessary to specify their use in rehabilitation.