In healthy subjects, dual hemisphere transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary (S1) and secondary somatosensory cortices (S2) has been found to transiently enhance tactile performance. However, the effect of dual hemisphere tDCS on tactile performance in stroke patients with sensory deficits remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether dual hemisphere tDCS over S1 and S2 could enhance tactile discrimination in stroke patients. We employed a double-blind, crossover, sham-controlled experimental design. Eight chronic stroke patients with sensory deficits participated in this study. We used a grating orientation task (GOT) to measure the tactile discriminative threshold of the affected and non-affected index fingers before, during, and 10 min after four tDCS conditions. For both the S1 and S2 conditions, we placed an anodal electrode over the lesioned hemisphere and a cathodal electrode over the opposite hemisphere. We applied tDCS at an intensity of 2 mA for 15 min in both S1 and S2 conditions. We included two sham conditions in which the positions of the electrodes and the current intensity were identical to that in the S1 and S2 conditions except that current was delivered for the initial 15 s only. We found that GOT thresholds for the affected index finger during and 10 min after the S1 and S2 conditions were significantly lower compared with each sham condition. GOT thresholds were not significantly different between the S1 and S2 conditions at any time point. We concluded that dual-hemisphere tDCS over S1 and S2 can transiently enhance tactile discriminative task performance in chronic stroke patients with sensory dysfunction.
Background: Somatosensory impairment is common in patients who have had a stroke and can affect their motor function and activities of daily living (ADL). Therefore, detecting and treating somatosensory impairments properly is considered to be very important, and various examinations have been developed. However, the reliability and validity of few of them have been verified due to differences in the procedure of each examiner or poor quantification by the examination itself.Objective: We hypothesized that, with fixed procedures two convenient clinical examinations, the Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament Test (SWMT) and the Thumb Localizing Test (TLT), could provide reliable assessments of light touch sensation and proprioception. The purpose of this study was to verify the reliability and validity of these two examinations as indices of somatosensory impairment of the upper extremity (UE) in patients with chronic post-stroke hemiparesis.Methods: Fifty patients with chronic stroke (median time after onset of stroke, 848 [474–1708] days, mean age 57 [standard deviation 14] years) were enrolled at Keio University Hospital from 2017 to 2018. Examiners learned the original method of the SWMT and the TLT rigorously and shared it with each other. The TLT procedure was partially modified by dividing the location of the patient's thumb into four spaces. Two examiners evaluated the SWMT and the TLT for 2 days, and intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities were calculated using weighted kappa statistics. In addition to this, the evaluator size score of the SWMT was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate systematic bias. The Stroke Impairment Assessment Set (SIAS) sensory items were used to assess validity, and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were calculated.Results: Intra/inter-rater agreements of the SWMT grade score were 0.89 (thumb, 95%CI: 0.83–0.95)/ 0.75 (0.60–0.91) and 0.80 (index finger, 0.67–0.93)/0.79 (0.66–0.92), and of the TLT they were 0.83 (navel level proximal space, 0.71–0.95)/ 0.83 (0.73–0.92), 0.90 (navel level distal space, 0.85–0.96)/ 0.80 (0.69–0.90), 0.80 (shoulder level proximal space, 0.68–0.92)/ 0.77 (0.65–0.89), and 0.87 (shoulder level distal space, 0.80–0.93)/ 0.80 (0.68–0.92) (P < 0.001, each item). All of them showed substantial agreement, but the MDC of the SWMT evaluator size was 1.28 to 1.79 in the inter-rater test and 1.94–2.06 in the intra-rater test. The SWMT grade score showed a strong correlation with the SIAS light touch sensation item (r = 0.65, p < 0.001), as did the TLT with the SIAS position sense item (r = −0.70–0.62, p < 0.001 each space).Conclusions: The reliability and validity of the SWMT and the TLT were verified. These tests can be used as reliable sensory examinations of the UE in patients with chronic stroke, and especially for the SWMT, it is more reliable for screening.
Background Upper-limb spasticity frequently occurs after stroke and there is a clinical need for more effective therapies. The Phase III J-PURE study assessed the efficacy and safety of incobotulinumtoxinA up to 400 U for post-stroke upper-limb spasticity in Japan. Methods In the 12-week main period (MP) of this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, Japanese subjects with upperlimb spasticity received one injection cycle of incobotulinumtoxinA 400 U, 250 U, or matching placebo. Eligible subjects enrolled in an open-label extension (OLEX) period of three injection cycles of incobotulinumtoxinA 400 U (32-40 weeks). The primary objective was to establish the efficacy of a single incobotulinumtoxinA injection using the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) wrist score. Secondary efficacy outcomes and safety were also assessed. Results Among 100 treated subjects, AUCs for incobotulinumtoxinA 400 and 250 U were significantly different versus placebo (p = 0.0014 and p = 0.0031, respectively) for change from baseline in MAS wrist score to the end of the MP, with similar results from baseline to week 4. IncobotulinumtoxinA 400 U was superior versus placebo across other spasticity patterns and at most study visits. Improvements were maintained throughout the OLEX period. Disability Assessment Scale and Investigator's Clinical Global Impression scores improved significantly for incobotulinumtoxinA 400 U versus placebo from baseline to week 4 (p = 0.0067 and p < 0.0001, respectively). IncobotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated up to 52 weeks, with no unexpected adverse events. Conclusion IncobotulinumtoxinA reduced (pathologically) increased muscle tone, improved functionality and was well tolerated in Japanese subjects with post-stroke upper-limb spasticity.
Although motor imagery enhances the excitability of the corticospinal tract, there are no peripheral afferent inputs during motor imagery. In contrast, peripheral nerve electrical stimulation (ES) can induce peripheral afferent inputs; thus, a combination of motor imagery and ES may enhance the excitability of the corticospinal tract compared with motor imagery alone. Moreover, the level of stimulation intensity may also be related to the modulation of the excitability of the corticospinal tract during motor imagery. Here, we evaluated whether a combination of motor imagery and peripheral nerve ES influences the excitability of the corticospinal tract and measured the effect of ES intensity on the excitability induced during motor imagery. The imagined task was a movement that involved touching the thumb to the little finger, whereas ES involved simultaneous stimulation of the ulnar and median nerves at the wrist. Two different ES intensities were used, one above the motor threshold and another above the sensory threshold. Further, we evaluated whether actual movement with afferent input induced by ES modulates the excitability of the corticospinal tract as well as motor imagery. We found that a combination of motor imagery and ES enhanced the excitability of the motor cortex in the thenar muscle compared with the other condition. Furthermore, we established that the modulation of the corticospinal tract was related to ES intensity. However, we found that the excitability of the corticospinal tract induced by actual movement was enhanced by peripheral nerve ES above the sensory threshold.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.