Publication:
Comparison of bihemispheric and unihemispheric M1 transcranial direct current stimulations during physical therapy in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial

dc.contributor.coauthorYoussef, Hussein
dc.contributor.coauthorMohamed, Nema Abd El-Hameed
dc.contributor.coauthorHamdy, Mohamed
dc.contributor.departmentKUTTAM (Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine)
dc.contributor.departmentGraduate School of Health Sciences
dc.contributor.kuauthorYoussef, Hussein
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteGRADUATE SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteResearch Center
dc.date.accessioned2024-12-29T09:41:11Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractBackground: Despite the central origin of stroke affecting the primary motor cortex M1, most physical and occupational rehabilitation programs focus on peripheral treatments rather than addressing the central origin of the problem. This highlights the urgent need for effective proto-cols to improve neurological rehabilitation and achieve better long-term functional outcomes. Objectives: Our hypothesis was that the bihemispheric delivery of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is superior to unihemispheric in enhancing motor function after stroke, in both the upper and lower extremities. Methods: 35 sub-acute ischemic stroke survivors were randomly divided into three groups: bihe-mispheric and unihemispheric treatment groups, or sham groups. Each participant received a 20-minute session of tDCS with an intensity of 2 mA during physical therapy sessions, three days a week, for four weeks. The outcomes were measured using Fugl-Meyer assessment scale, modi-fied Ashworth scale, Berg balance scale, and serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels. Results: One-way ANOVA test indicated a significant effect of both treatment protocols on the upper extremity (p = < 0.001) and lower extremity (p = .034) for motor measures, but there was no difference between the two (p = .939). Kruskal Wallis test for spasticity showed a significant improvement in both treatment groups for elbow (p = .036) and wrist flexors (p = .025), com-pared to the sham group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in spasticity between uni-and bihemispheric stimulation for elbow (p = .731) or wrist flexors (p = .910). Conclusion: There is no statistically significant difference in efficacy between bihemispheric and unihemispheric tDCS in patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke.
dc.description.indexedbyWOS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.issue3
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuN/A
dc.description.volume53
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.neucli.2023.102895
dc.identifier.eissn1769-7131
dc.identifier.issn0987-7053
dc.identifier.quartileQ2
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85166517802
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucli.2023.102895
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/23570
dc.identifier.wos1054321700001
dc.keywordsBalance
dc.keywordsBrain stimulation
dc.keywordsMotor control
dc.keywordsNeural plasticity
dc.keywordsSpasticity
dc.keywordsStroke
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier France-Editions Scientifiques Medicales Elsevier
dc.relation.ispartofNeurophysiologie Clinique-Clinical Neurophysiology
dc.subjectClinical neurology
dc.subjectNeurosciences
dc.subjectPhysiology
dc.titleComparison of bihemispheric and unihemispheric M1 transcranial direct current stimulations during physical therapy in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.kuauthorYoussef, Hussein
local.publication.orgunit1GRADUATE SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES
local.publication.orgunit1Research Center
local.publication.orgunit2KUTTAM (Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine)
local.publication.orgunit2Graduate School of Health Sciences
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication91bbe15d-017f-446b-b102-ce755523d939
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication2f870f28-12c9-4b28-9465-b91a69c1d48c
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery91bbe15d-017f-446b-b102-ce755523d939
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication4c75e0a5-ca7f-4443-bd78-1b473d4f6743
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublicationd437580f-9309-4ecb-864a-4af58309d287
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery4c75e0a5-ca7f-4443-bd78-1b473d4f6743

Files