A Review of Neuromodulation in the Neurorehabilitation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
l of rna Neu ou ro Yin and Slavin, Int J Neurorehabilitation Eng 2015, 2:1 J r l e a h a n b International DOI: 10.4172/2376-0281.1000151 o i i t l i t a a n t r i o e t n n I ISSN: 2376-0281 Journal of Neurorehabilitation Review Article Open Access A Review of Neuromodulation in the Neurorehabilitation Dali Yin and Konstantin V Slavin* Department of Neurosurgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Abstract For many years, invasive neuromodulation has been used in neurorehabilitation, mainly in treatment of movement disorders and various psychiatric conditions. Use of deep brain stimulation and other implanted electrical stimulators is being explored in other conditions, such as stroke, traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury. This paper provides a review of the possible role of Neuromodulation in neurorehabilitation and highlights some of its applications for patients with various neurological conditions. Since most of the existing findings are based on animal studies, preliminary data, case reports and poor-controlled studies, further investigations including research and clinical trials are necessary to increase the applications of neurostimulation in the field of neurorehabilitation. Keywords: Neuromodulation; Neurorehabilitation; Stroke; rehabilitation constantly improves motor function in ratsfollowing Traumatic brain injury; Spinal cord injury; Epilepsy motor cortex injury [10-11]. Introduction Motor Cortex Stimulation Neurorehabilitation is a complicated medical process; its goal is to A small randomized clinical trial [n=24] found that Motor Cortex help patients to recover from injuries or abnormalities in the Central Stimulation [MCS] lead to motor and functional improvements Nervous System [CNS], and to compensate for functional deficits if [difference of Fugl-Meyer motor scores in estimated means = 3.8, p = possible. Neurorehabilitation offers a series of therapies, including .042] in stroke patients, and the effect was maintained during 6-month physical, occupational, speech, psychological therapies and so on with a follow-up period [12]. In a multicenter safety and efficacy study, focus on improving the patients’ health. The field of neurorehabilitation MCSresulted in improvementsin upper-extremity function during 3 is relatively new, and some cutting edge therapies, including weeks or 6 weeks [13, 14] of the rehabilitation. MCS for 3 weeks during neuromodulation, that may be potentially beneficial topatients stroke rehabilitation also led to improvement inpincer movement of the withCNS injuries or other disorders, are currently being investigated. previously paretic hand in a hemi-paretic stroke patient [13]. Moreover, The brain operates through signal processing within neural networks MCS resulted in 40%–50% improvement of pain caused by brain injury [1,2]. The advances in the understanding of brain circuitry, together in approximately 50% of patients [15]. Table 1 shows clinical data of with the development of neurostimulation technologies have prompted different studies. However, the limitations of these studies on MCS include us to explore the potential of electrical stimulation of the nervous small sample size and short follow up. Overall, the long-term effect of system to promote functional recovery in patients with CNS disorders MCS is uncertain, as no study has explored that.The mechanismsby through activation of neuronal structures and alteration or inhibition of which such improvements occur are not clear.The improvements may pathological pattern of neuronal activity. Over the past several decades, be a result of increased dendritic plasticity and decreased astrogliosis electrical neurostimulation of deep cerebral structures hasbeen proven in the perilesional cortex and the contralesional anterior horn of the a clinically effective therapy in the treatment of movement disorders cervical spinal cord as shown by an immunohistochemical study[16]. with a remarkable safety profile [3,4]. Neurostimulation approach in Another study indicated motor cortex stimulation after pyramidotomy patients with movement disorders has shed light on the possibility could increase the length of axons from theprimary motor cortex to of correcting abnormal networks. The neurostimulation technology the spinal cord, as well as to the red nucleus and cuneate nucleus [17]. has been also applied to psychiatric disorders and chronic pain. The Increased axonal outgrowthwith stimulation may be due to a release of objective of this review is to explore the use of neurostimulation neurotrophins, such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor, and increased in treatment of stroke, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury motor activityof the subjects [7]. and epilepsy. A thorough search of the literature was conducted in preparation of this review. Deep Brain Stimulation DBS has been explored on patients with Persistent Vegetative State Neuromodulation for Brain Injury Caused By Stroke [PVS] or minimally conscious state [MinCS] following traumatic brain And Trauma injury.In the late 1960-s, Hassler et al described the concept of using The incidence rate of Traumatic Brain Injury [TBI] is 558 per 100,000 people [5], and that of stroke is 67-70 per 100,000 [6]. Brain injury caused bytrauma and stroke remains a significant public health *Corresponding author: Konstantin V Slavin, Department of Neurosurgery, problem with devastating consequences, and is a leading cause of University of Illinois at Chicago, 912 South Wood Street, M/C 799, Rm. 451N, Chicago, disability and death in the world. New therapeutic strategies are needed IL 60612,Tel: 312-996-4842; Fax: 312-996-9018; E-mail: [email protected] for treatment of neurological functional deficits followingtraumatic or Received December 09, 2014; Accepted February 28, 2015; Published March ischemic brain injury. Neuromodulation approach has been employed 06, 2015 to treat stroke and TBI in animal models [7-11] and clinical studies Citation: Yin D, Slavin KV (2015) A Review of Neuromodulation in the [12-14], with preliminary data showing that neurostimulation may Neurorehabilitation. Int J Neurorehabilitation 2: 151. doi:10.4172/2376- 0281.1000151 lead to functional improvement in the setting of brain injuries. A few animal studies in non-human primates have observed thatcortical Copyright: © 2015 Yin D, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted stimulationenhances functional recovery and cortical plasticity after use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and neural injury induced by stroke [7-9]. Cortical stimulation during source are credited. Int J Neurorehabilitation Volume 2 • Issue 1 • 1000151 ISSN: 2376-0281 IJN, an open access journal Citation: Yin D, Slavin KV (2015) A Review of Neuromodulation in the Neurorehabilitation. Int J Neurorehabilitation 2: 151. doi:10.4172/2376- 0281.1000151 Page 2 of 5 Clinical data of different studies Type of Types of Sample Study Results and Authors Ref # Groups Outcome Measures Follow up Neurostimulation Study Size Population Outcome Data Improvement in Stimulation with Mortor Cortex Huang Small phase Ischemic Upper extremity Fugl- upper extremity 12 24 rehabilatation vs 6 months Stimulation et al II pilot study stroke patients Meyer score motor control in the rehabilation alone investigational group signoficant improvement in Nonblinded Stimulation with Mortor Cortex Ischemic Upper extremity Fugl- upper extremity Brown et al 13 trial and 10 rehabilatation vs 12 weeks Stimulation stroke patients Meyer score motor control in safety study rehabilation alone stimulation plus rehabilitation Safety and Stimulation with Upper extremity Fugl- 67%, Improvement Mortor Cortex Ischemic Levy et al 14 efficacy 24 rehabilatation vs Meyer score, Arm motor in upper extremity 4 weeks Stimulation stroke patients study rehabilation alone ability test motor control. Post-traumatic Deep Brain Hassler Behavioural and EEG Behavioural and 18 Case report 1 apallic N/A N/A Stimulation et al measurement EEG arousal. syndrome Recovery of Post-traumatic Changes in clinical Deep Brain Cohadon DBS treated group some degree of 19 Clinical study 25 vegetative feathres and overall 1 to 12 years Stimulation et al only consciousness in 13 state behaviour cases. The Pain-related Deep Brain Katayama Patients in DBS treated group P250 transiently 20 Case series 8 Pain-related P250 > 6 months Stimulation et al PVS only increased in 4 patients. Neurological and Deep Brain Yamamoto Patients in DBS treated group Eight patients 21 Case series 21 electophysiological > 10 years Stimulation et al PVS only emerged from PVS. evaluation Eight patients Neurological and Deep Brain Yamamoto Patients in DBS treated group emerged from PVS, 22 Case series 26 electophysiological > 10 years Stimulation et al PVS or MCS only and 4 from the evaluation bedridden state. Eight DBS-treated Auditory brainstem patients emerged 21 DBS treated Deep Brain Yamamoto Patients in response, somatosensory from PVS and obey 23 Case series 107 vs 86 non-treated > 10 years Stimulation et al PVS evoked potential and pain- verbal commands; group related P250 No patients with DBS recovered. behavioural improvements Deep Brain Patients in DBS treated group Qualitative changes in (command following, Schiff et al 24 Case report 1 6 months Stimulation MCS only behaviour verbalization and inconsistent communication) Cervical SCS Stroke and significantly Spinal Cord 5 cervical