4.5 Article

Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Somatosensory Recovery After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000910

关键词

Direct Current Stimulation; Somatosensory Cortex; Sensation Disorders; Stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary somatosensory cortex on the recovery of somatosensation, motor function, and the activities of daily living in patients with subacute stroke. Design This study was a prospective, randomized sham controlled, double-blinded study. Patients with subacute stroke having somatosensory deficits (N = 24) were enrolled and assigned randomly to the anodal and sham stimulation groups. Patients received 10 consecutive anodal or sham transcranial direct current stimulations over the primary somatosensory cortex on the side of the stroke lesion. Before and after each stimulation session, Nottingham sensory assessments, Semmes Weinstein monofilaments examination, and manual function tests were performed, and modified Brunnstrom classification, modified Barthel index, and functional ambulation categories were assessed. Results Although there was no clear significant difference between the two groups, when the changes from baseline to posttreatment evaluation were compared between the groups, a partially significant improvement was observed in the anodal stimulation group compared with the sham stimulation group. Interestingly, the tactile sensation of the unaffected side also improved. Moreover, the greater improvement in activities of daily living function was observed in the anodal stimulation group too. Conclusion Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary somatosensory cortex may be a useful adjuvant therapy for the recovery of somatosensation and activities of daily living function in patients with sensory deficits after stroke.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据