Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation combined with virtual reality for improving gait in children with spastic diparetic cerebral palsy: a pilot,randomized,controlled,double-blind,clinical trial
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2015
Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation combined with virtual reality for improving gait in children with spastic diparetic cerebral palsy: a pilot,randomized,controlled,double-blind,clinical trial
To compare the effects of anodal vs. sham transcranial direct current stimulation combined with virtual reality training for improving gait in children with cerebral palsy.
Design:
A pilot, randomized, controlled, double-blind, clinical trial.
Setting:
Rehabilitation clinics.
Subjects:
A total of 20 children with diparesis owing to cerebral palsy.
Interventions:
The experimental group received anodal stimulation and the control group received sham stimulation over the primary motor cortex during virtual reality training. All patients underwent the same training programme involving a virtual reality (10 sessions). Evaluations were performed before and after the intervention as well as at the one-month follow-up and involved gait analysis, the Gross Motor Function Measure, the Pediatric Evaluation Disability Inventory and the determination of motor evoked potentials.
Results:
The experimental group had a better performance regarding gait velocity (experimental group: 0.63 ±0.17 to 0.85 ±0.11 m/s; control group: 0.73 ±0.15 to 0.61 ±0.15 m/s), cadence (experimental group: 97.4 ±14.1 to 116.8 ±8.7 steps/minute; control group: 92.6 ±10.4 to 99.7 ±9.7 steps/minute), gross motor function (dimension D experimental group: 59.7 ±12.8 to 74.9 ±13.8; control group: 58.9 ±10.4 to 69.4 ±9.3; dimension E experimental group: 59.0 ±10.9 to 79.1 ±8.5; control group: 60.3 ±10.1 to 67.4 ±11.4) and independent mobility (experimental group: 34.3 ±5.9 to 43.8 ±75.3; control group: 34.4 ±8.3 to 37.7 ±7.7). Moreover, transcranial direct current stimulation led to a significant increase in motor evoked potential (experimental group: 1.4 ±0.7 to 2.6 ±0.4; control group: 1.3 ±0.6 to 1.6 ±0.4).
Conclusion:
These preliminary findings support the hypothesis that anodal transcranial direct current stimulation combined with virtual reality training could be a useful tool for improving gait in children with cerebral palsy.
ChagasPManciniMBarbosaASilvaP. Analysis of the interventions used for gait promotion in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review of the literature. Rev Bras Fisioter2004; 8: 155–163.
2.
GreccoLACZanonNSampaioLMMOliveiraCS. A comparison of treadmill training and overground walking in ambulant children with cerebral palsy: randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Rehabil2013; 27(8): 686–696.
3.
YalcinkayaEYCaglarNSTugcuBTonbaklarA. Rehabilitation outcomes of children with cerebral palsy. J Phys Ther Sci2014; 26: 285.
4.
KurzMJWilsonTW. Neuromagnetic activity in the somatosensory cortices of children with cerebral palsy. Neurosci Lett2011; 490: 1–5.
5.
PitcherJBSchneiderLABurnsNR. Reduced corticomotor excitability and motor skills development in children born preterm. J Physiology2012; 590: 5827–5844.
6.
ShinYKLeeDRHwangHJYouSHImCH. A novel EEG-based brain mapping to determine cortical activation patterns in normal children and children with cerebral palsy during motor imagery tasks. NeuroRehabil2012; 31: 349–355.
7.
BurtonHDixitSLitkowskiPWingertJR. Functional connectivity for somatosensory and motor cortex in spastic diplegia. Somatosensory Motor Res2009; 26: 90–104.
8.
Domagalska-SzopaMSzopaA. Gait pattern differences between children with mild scoliosis and children with unilateral cerebral palsy. PloS one2014; 9: e103095.
9.
NevalainenPPihkoEMäenpääHValanneLNummenmaaLLauronenL. Bilateral alterations in somatosensory cortical processing in hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Developmental Med Child Neurol2012; 54: 361–367.
10.
RoseSGuzzettaAPannekKBoydR. MRI structural connectivity, disruption of primary sensorimotor pathways, and hand function in cerebral palsy. Brain connectivity. 2011; 1: 309–316.
11.
LohseKRHildermanCGCheungKLTatlaSVan der LoosHM. Virtual reality therapy for adults post-stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring virtual environments and commercial games in therapy. PloS one2014; 9: e93318.
12.
AdamovichSVFluetGGTunikEMeriansAS. Sensorimotor training in virtual reality: a review. NeuroRehabil2009; 25: 29–44.
13.
ReidD. The influence of virtual reality on playfulness in children with cerebral palsy: a pilot study. Occupat Ther Int2004; 11: 131–144.
14.
DeutschJEBorbelyMFillerJHuhnKGuarrera-BowlbyP. Use of a low-cost, commercially available gaming console (Wii) for rehabilitation of an adolescent with cerebral palsy. Phys Ther2008; 88: 1196–1207.
15.
SveistrupH.Motor rehabilitation using virtual reality. J Neuroeng Rehabil2004; 1(1): 10.
16.
WeissPLRandDKatzNKizonyR. Video capture virtual reality as a flexible and effective rehabilitation tool. J Neuroeng Rehabil2004; 1: 12.
17.
ClarkRABryantALPuaYMcCroryPBennellKHuntM. Validity and reliability of the Nintendo Wii Balance Board for assessment of standing balance. Gait Posture2010; 31: 307–310.
18.
HurkmansHLRibbersGMStreur-KranenburgMFStamHJVan Den Berg-EmonsRJ. Energy expenditure in chronic stroke patients playing Wii Sports: a pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil2011; 8: 1–7.
19.
DuclosCMiévilleCGagnonDLeclercC. Dynamic stability requirements during gait and standing exergames on the Wii Fit system in the elderly. J Neuroeng Rehabil2012; 9: 28.
20.
BurtnerPALeinwandRSullivanKJGohHTKantakSS. Motor learning in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: feedback effects on skill acquisition. Developmental Med Child Neurol2014; 56: 259–266.
21.
StaggCJayaramGPastorDKincsesZMatthewsPJohansen-BergH. Polarity and timing-dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in explicit motor learning. Neuropsychologia2011; 49: 800–804.
22.
LeeSJChunMH. Combination transcranial direct current stimulation and virtual reality therapy for upper extremity training in patients with subacute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2014; 95: 431–438.
23.
VianaRLaurentinoGSouzaR. Effects of the addition of transcranial direct current stimulation to virtual reality therapy after stroke: A pilot randomized controlled trial. NeuroRehabil2014.
24.
DietzV. Neurophysiology of gait disorders: present and future applications. Electroencephalography Clin Neurophys1997; 103: 333–355.
25.
KaskiDQuadirSPatelMYousifNBronsteinAM. Enhanced locomotor adaptation aftereffect in the “broken escalator” phenomenon using anodal tDCS. J Neurophysiol2012; 107: 2493–2505.
26.
GreccoLACMendonçaMEDuarteNAZanonNFregniFOliveiraCS. Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with treadmill gait training in delayed neuro-psychomotor development. J Phys Ther Sci2014; 26: 945.
27.
GreccoLACDuarteNdACMendonçaME. Transcranial direct current stimulation during treadmill training in children with cerebral palsy: A randomized controlled double-blind clinical trial. Res Development Disabil2014; 35: 2840–2848.
28.
FitzgeraldMJTGruenerGMtuiE. Clinical Neuroanatomy and Neuroscience. 6th Edition. Saunders/Elsevier, 2011.
29.
NitscheMASchauenburgALangN. Facilitation of implicit motor learning by weak transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex in the human. J Cognitive Neurosci2003; 15: 619–626.
30.
NitscheMAPaulusW. Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology2001; 57: 1899–1901.
31.
StaggCJNitscheMA. Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation. The Neuroscientist2011; 17: 37–53.
32.
SriramanAOishiTMadhavanS. Timing-dependent priming effects of tDCS on ankle motor skill learning. Brain Res2014; 1581: 23–29.
33.
BoggioPSCastroLOSavagimEA. Enhancement of non-dominant hand motor function by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Neurosci Lett2006; 404: 232–236.
34.
ReisJSchambraHMCohenLG. Noninvasive cortical stimulation enhances motor skill acquisition over multiple days through an effect on consolidation. Proc Nat Acad Sci2009; 106: 1590–1595.
35.
ZimermanMHeiseKFHoppeJCohenLGGerloffCHummelFC. Modulation of training by single-session transcranial direct current stimulation to the intact motor cortex enhances motor skill acquisition of the paretic hand. Stroke2012; 43: 2185–2191.
36.
PalisanoRRosenbaumPWalterSRussellDWoodEGaluppiB. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Med Child Neurol1997; 39: 214–223.
37.
DavisRBIIIOunpuuSTyburskiDGageJR. A gait analysis data collection and reduction technique. Human Movement Sci1991; 10: 575–587.
38.
FerrariABenedettiMGPavanE. Quantitative comparison of five current protocols in gait analysis. Gait Posture2008; 28: 207–216.
39.
BakerRMcGinleyJLSchwartzMH. The gait profile score and movement analysis profile. Gait Posture2009; 30: 265–269.
40.
CimolinVGalliM. Summary measures for clinical gait analysis: A literature review. Gait Posture2014; 39: 1005–1010.
41.
FerreiraLABCimolinVCosticiPFAlbertiniGOliveiraCSGalliM. Effects of gastrocnemius fascia lengthening on gait pattern in children with cerebral palsy using the Gait Profile Score. Res Development Disabil2014; 35: 1137–1143.
42.
CellettiCGalliMCimolinV. Use of the Gait Profile Score for the evaluation of patients with joint hypermobility syndrome/Ehlers–Danlos syndrome hypermobility type. Res Development Disabil2013; 34: 4280–4285.
43.
KarkLVickersDMcIntoshASimmonsA. Use of gait summary measures with lower limb amputees. Gait Posture2012; 35: 238–243.
44.
RutzEBakerRTiroshORomkesJHaaseCBrunnerR. Tibialis anterior tendon shortening in combination with Achilles tendon lengthening in spastic equinus in cerebral palsy. Gait Posture2011; 33: 152–157.
45.
SchweizerKRomkesJCoslovskyMBrunnerR. The influence of muscle strength on the gait profile score (GPS) across different patients. Gait Posture2014; 39: 80–85.
46.
RussellDJAveryLMRosenbaumPLRainaPSWalterSDPalisanoRJ. Improved scaling of the gross motor function measure for children with cerebral palsy: evidence of reliability and validity. Phys Ther2000; 80: 873–885.
47.
RussellDJRosenbaumPLAveryLMLaneM. Gross motor function measure (GMFM-66 and GMFM-88) user’s manual. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
48.
FeldmanABHaleySMCoryellJ. Concurrent and construct validity of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Phys Ther1990; 70: 602–610.
49.
HaleySMCosterWJFaasRM. A content validity study of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Pediatric Phys Ther1991; 3: 177–184.
50.
BrunoniARAmaderaJBerbelBVolzMSRizzerioBGFregniF. A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation. Int J Neuropsychopharma2011; 14: 1133–1145.
51.
HomanRWHermanJPurdyP. Cerebral location of international 10–20 system electrode placement. Electroencephalography Clin Neurophys1987; 66: 376–382.
52.
NitscheMPaulusW. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiology2000; 527: 633–639.
53.
BorosKPoreiszCMunchauAPaulusWNitscheM. Premotor transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) affects primary motor excitability in humans. Eur J Neurosci2008; 27: 1292–1300.
54.
StaggCO’SheaJKincsesZWoolrichMMatthewsPJohansen-BergH. Modulation of movement-associated cortical activation by transcranial direct cur-rent stimulation. Eur J Neurosci2009; 30: 1412–1423.
55.
LangNNitscheMPaulusWRothwellJLemonR. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation over the human motor cortex on corticospinal and transcallosal excitability. Exp Brain Res2004; 156: 439–443.
