Non-Invasive Systems Application in Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant public health concern, often leading to long-lasting impairments in cognitive, motor and sensory functions. The rapid development of non-invasive systems has revolutionized the field of TBI rehabilitation by offering modern and effective interventions. This narrative review explores the application of non-invasive technologies, including electroencephalography (EEG), quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG), brain–computer interface (BCI), eye tracking, near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), magnetoencephalography (MEG), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in assessing TBI consequences, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), low-level laser therapy (LLLT), neurofeedback, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial alternative current stimulation (tACS) and virtual reality (VR) as therapeutic approaches for TBI rehabilitation. In pursuit of advancing TBI rehabilitation, this narrative review highlights the promising potential of non-invasive technologies. We emphasize the need for future research and clinical trials to elucidate their mechanisms of action, refine treatment protocols, and ensure their widespread adoption in TBI rehabilitation settings.

Related collections

Most cited references 66

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research.

Simone Rossi, Mark Hallett, Paolo M Rossini … (2010)

This article is based on a consensus conference, which took place in Certosa di Pontignano, Siena (Italy) on March 7-9, 2008, intended to update the previous safety guidelines for the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in research and clinical settings. Over the past decade the scientific and medical community has had the opportunity to evaluate the safety record of research studies and clinical applications of TMS and repetitive TMS (rTMS). In these years the number of applications of conventional TMS has grown impressively, new paradigms of stimulation have been developed (e.g., patterned repetitive TMS) and technical advances have led to new device designs and to the real-time integration of TMS with electroencephalography (EEG), positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Thousands of healthy subjects and patients with various neurological and psychiatric diseases have undergone TMS allowing a better assessment of relative risks. The occurrence of seizures (i.e., the most serious TMS-related acute adverse effect) has been extremely rare, with most of the few new cases receiving rTMS exceeding previous guidelines, often in patients under treatment with drugs which potentially lower the seizure threshold. The present updated guidelines review issues of risk and safety of conventional TMS protocols, address the undesired effects and risks of emerging TMS interventions, the applications of TMS in patients with implanted electrodes in the central nervous system, and safety aspects of TMS in neuroimaging environments. We cover recommended limits of stimulation parameters and other important precautions, monitoring of subjects, expertise of the rTMS team, and ethical issues. While all the recommendations here are expert based, they utilize published data to the extent possible.

0 comments Cited 671 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Traumatic brain injury: integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research

Andrew Maas, David Menon, P David Adelson … (2017)

0 comments Cited 625 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).

Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur, Andrea Antal, Samar S. Ayache … (2017)

A group of European experts was commissioned by the European Chapter of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology to gather knowledge about the state of the art of the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) from studies published up until September 2016, regarding pain, Parkinson's disease, other movement disorders, motor stroke, poststroke aphasia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, consciousness disorders, Alzheimer's disease, tinnitus, depression, schizophrenia, and craving/addiction. The evidence-based analysis included only studies based on repeated tDCS sessions with sham tDCS control procedure; 25 patients or more having received active treatment was required for Class I, while a lower number of 10-24 patients was accepted for Class II studies. Current evidence does not allow making any recommendation of Level A (definite efficacy) for any indication. Level B recommendation (probable efficacy) is proposed for: (i) anodal tDCS of the left primary motor cortex (M1) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in fibromyalgia; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in major depressive episode without drug resistance; (iii) anodal tDCS of the right DLPFC (with left DLPFC cathode) in addiction/craving. Level C recommendation (possible efficacy) is proposed for anodal tDCS of the left M1 (or contralateral to pain side, with right orbitofrontal cathode) in chronic lower limb neuropathic pain secondary to spinal cord lesion. Conversely, Level B recommendation (probable inefficacy) is conferred on the absence of clinical effects of: (i) anodal tDCS of the left temporal cortex (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in tinnitus; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left DLPFC (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in drug-resistant major depressive episode. It remains to be clarified whether the probable or possible therapeutic effects of tDCS are clinically meaningful and how to optimally perform tDCS in a therapeutic setting. In addition, the easy management and low cost of tDCS devices allow at home use by the patient, but this might raise ethical and legal concerns with regard to potential misuse or overuse. We must be careful to avoid inappropriate applications of this technique by ensuring rigorous training of the professionals and education of the patients.