Zhang Xiaoya, Wu Jianxin, Liang Dun, Ruan Bin, Gao Qi
School of Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
Shenzhen Prevention and Treatment Center for Occupational Diseases, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China.
J Sports Sci Med. 2025 Jun 1;24(2):332-340. doi: 10.52082/jssm.2025.332. eCollection 2025 Jun.
This study aimed to evaluate the impacts of a 4-week transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), balance training (BT), and an integrated program combining tDCS with BT on static and dynamic postural control in athletes suffering from chronic ankle instability (CAI); as well as to explore whether the combined program produces superior effects compared to either single intervention. Forty athletes with CAI were randomized into four groups: tDCS group, sham tDCS (s-tDCS) group, tDCS + BT group, and s-tDCS + BT group. Twenty minutes of 2 mA anodal or sham tDCS was applied either independently or in conjunction with a 20-minute progressive hop-to-stabilization balance (PHSB) training program over 12 supervised sessions spanning 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were the total score of the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) and the composite reach distance (COMP) in the Y-Balance Test (YBT). Secondary outcome measures included error scores of single-limb and tandem stance on firm and foam surfaces, as well as mean normalized reach distances in the anterior (ANT), posteromedial (PM), and posterolateral (PL) directions. Compared to baseline measures, the tDCS, tDCS + BT, and s-tDCS + BT groups scored fewer errors on posttest measures for single-leg stance on a firm surface (Sfi), single-leg stance on a foam surface (Sfo), tandem stance on a firm surface (Tfi), tandem stance on a foam surface (Tfo), and the total BESS ( < 0.05). Additionally, both the tDCS + BT and the s-tDCS + BT groups showed greater PM, PL, and COMP in posttest measures compared to pretest measures ( < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found among the tDCS group, the tDCS + BT group, and the s-tDCS + BT group in the posttest measures ( > 0.05). tDCS, BT, and the combination of these two interventions can significantly improve static postural stability in athletes with CAI. However, only intervention methods incorporating BT were effective in enhancing dynamic stability. The combined program offered no additional benefits.
本研究旨在评估为期4周的经颅直流电刺激（tDCS）、平衡训练（BT）以及tDCS与BT相结合的综合方案对慢性踝关节不稳（CAI）运动员静态和动态姿势控制的影响；并探讨与单一干预相比，综合方案是否能产生更优效果。40名患有CAI的运动员被随机分为四组：tDCS组、假tDCS（s-tDCS）组、tDCS + BT组和s-tDCS + BT组。在为期4周的12次监督训练中，独立或结合20分钟的渐进式单腿跳至稳定平衡（PHSB）训练方案，施加20分钟的2 mA阳极或假tDCS。主要结局指标为平衡误差评分系统（BESS）总分和Y平衡测试（YBT）中的综合伸展距离（COMP）。次要结局指标包括在坚实和泡沫表面上单腿站立和串联站立的误差评分，以及在前（ANT）、后内侧（PM）和后外侧（PL）方向上的平均标准化伸展距离。与基线测量相比，tDCS组、tDCS + BT组和s-tDCS + BT组在坚实表面上单腿站立（Sfi）、泡沫表面上单腿站立（Sfo）、坚实表面上串联站立（Tfi）、泡沫表面上串联站立（Tfo）以及BESS总分的测试后测量中错误得分更少（P < 0.05）。此外，与测试前测量相比，tDCS + BT组和s-tDCS + BT组在测试后测量中均显示出更大的PM、PL和COMP（P < 0.05）。然而，tDCS组、tDCS + BT组和s-tDCS + BT组在测试后测量中未发现显著差异（P > 0.05）。tDCS、BT以及这两种干预措施的组合均可显著改善CAI运动员的静态姿势稳定性。然而，只有包含BT的干预方法在增强动态稳定性方面有效。综合方案并未带来额外益处。
