Five-Session Dual-Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation With Task-Specific Training Does Not Improve Gait and Lower Limb Performance Over Training Alone in Subacute Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Issued Date
2022-06-01
Resource Type
ISSN
10947159
eISSN
15251403
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85115212764
Pubmed ID
34547829
Journal Title
Neuromodulation
Volume
25
Issue
4
Start Page
558
End Page
568
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Neuromodulation Vol.25 No.4 (2022) , 558-568
Suggested Citation
Aneksan B. Five-Session Dual-Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation With Task-Specific Training Does Not Improve Gait and Lower Limb Performance Over Training Alone in Subacute Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Neuromodulation Vol.25 No.4 (2022) , 558-568. 568. doi:10.1111/ner.13526 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/86716
Title
Five-Session Dual-Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation With Task-Specific Training Does Not Improve Gait and Lower Limb Performance Over Training Alone in Subacute Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objective: To determine the effect of five-session dual-transcranial direct current stimulation (dual-tDCS) combined with task-specific training on gait and lower limb motor performance in individuals with subacute stroke. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five participants who had a stroke in the subacute phase with mild motor impairment were recruited, randomized, and allocated into two groups. The active group (n = 13) received dual-tDCS with anodal over the lesioned hemisphere M1 and cathodal over the nonlesioned hemisphere, at 2 mA for 20 min before training for five consecutive days, while the sham group (n = 12) received sham mode before training. Gait speed as a primary outcome, temporospatial gait variables, lower-limb functional tasks (sit-to-stand and walking mobility), and muscle strength as secondary outcomes were collected at preintervention and postintervention (day 5), one-week follow-up, and one-month follow-up. Results: The primary outcome and most of the secondary outcomes were improved in both groups, with no significant difference between the two groups, and most of the results indicated small to moderate effect sizes of active tDCS compared to sham tDCS. Conclusion: The combined intervention showed no benefit over training alone in improving gait variables and lower-limb performance. However, some performances were saturated at some point, as moderate to high function participants were recruited in the present study. Future studies should consider recruiting participants with more varied motor impairment levels and may need to determine the optimal stimulation protocols and parameters to improve gait and lower-limb performance.