Minjoli Sena, Saturnino Guilherme B, Blicher Jakob Udby, Stagg Charlotte J, Siebner Hartwig R, Antunes André, Thielscher Axel
Danish Research Center for Magnetic Resonance, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Danish Research Center for Magnetic Resonance, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark; Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.
Neuroimage Clin. 2017 Apr 18;15:106-117. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.04.014. eCollection 2017.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) are two types of non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation (TBS). They are useful tools for stroke research and may be potential adjunct therapies for functional recovery. However, stroke often causes large cerebral lesions, which are commonly accompanied by a secondary enlargement of the ventricles and atrophy. These structural alterations substantially change the conductivity distribution inside the head, which may have potentially important consequences for both brain stimulation methods. We therefore aimed to characterize the impact of these changes on the spatial distribution of the electric field generated by both TBS methods. In addition to confirming the safety of TBS in the presence of large stroke-related structural changes, our aim was to clarify whether targeted stimulation is still possible. Realistic head models containing large cortical and subcortical stroke lesions in the right parietal cortex were created using MR images of two patients. For TMS, the electric field of a double coil was simulated using the finite-element method. Systematic variations of the coil position relative to the lesion were tested. For TDCS, the finite-element method was used to simulate a standard approach with two electrode pads, and the position of one electrode was systematically varied. For both TMS and TDCS, the lesion caused electric field "hot spots" in the cortex. However, these maxima were not substantially stronger than those seen in a healthy control. The electric field pattern induced by TMS was not substantially changed by the lesions. However, the average field strength generated by TDCS was substantially decreased. This effect occurred for both head models and even when both electrodes were distant to the lesion, caused by increased current shunting through the lesion and enlarged ventricles. Judging from the similar peak field strengths compared to the healthy control, both TBS methods are safe in patients with large brain lesions (in practice, however, additional factors such as potentially lowered thresholds for seizure-induction have to be considered). Focused stimulation by TMS seems to be possible, but standard tDCS protocols appear to be less efficient than they are in healthy subjects, strongly suggesting that tDCS studies in this population might benefit from individualized treatment planning based on realistic field calculations.
经颅磁刺激(TMS)和经颅直流电刺激(TDCS)是两种非侵入性经颅脑刺激(TBS)。它们是中风研究的有用工具,可能是功能恢复的潜在辅助治疗方法。然而,中风常导致大脑出现大面积病变,通常还伴有脑室继发性扩大和萎缩。这些结构改变会显著改变头部内部的电导率分布,这可能对两种脑刺激方法产生潜在的重要影响。因此,我们旨在描述这些变化对两种TBS方法所产生电场空间分布的影响。除了确认在存在与中风相关的大面积结构变化时TBS的安全性外,我们的目的还在于阐明是否仍可进行靶向刺激。利用两名患者的磁共振成像(MR)创建了包含右侧顶叶皮质大面积皮质和皮质下中风病变的逼真头部模型。对于TMS,使用有限元方法模拟双线圈的电场。测试了线圈相对于病变位置的系统变化。对于TDCS,使用有限元方法模拟采用两个电极片的标准方法,并系统地改变一个电极的位置。对于TMS和TDCS,病变均在皮质中引起电场“热点”。然而,这些最大值并不比健康对照中观察到的最大值强很多。TMS诱发的电场模式并未因病变而发生显著改变。然而,TDCS产生的平均场强显著降低。这种效应在两种头部模型中均出现,甚至当两个电极都远离病变时也会出现,这是由于通过病变和扩大的脑室的电流分流增加所致。从与健康对照相比相似的峰值场强来看,两种TBS方法在患有大面积脑病变的患者中都是安全的(然而在实际中,还必须考虑其他因素,如癫痫诱发阈值可能降低等)。TMS似乎可以进行聚焦刺激,但标准的TDCS方案在这类患者中似乎不如在健康受试者中有效,这强烈表明针对该人群的TDCS研究可能会受益于基于逼真场计算的个体化治疗方案。