In silico modeling of electric field modulation by transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke patients with skull burr holes: Implications for safe clinical application

被引:1
作者
Yoon, Mi-Jeong [1 ]
Kim, Hyungtaek [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Yoo, Yeun Jie [1 ]
Im, Sun [5 ]
Kim, Tae-Woo [6 ]
Dhaher, Yasin Y. [3 ,4 ]
Kim, Donghyeon [2 ]
Lim, Seong Hoon [7 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea
[2] Research Institute, Neurophet Inc., Seoul
[3] Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
[4] Department of Bioengineering, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX
[5] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Bucheon St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea
[6] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Traffic Injury Rehabilitation Hospital, Gyeongki-do
[7] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea
[8] CMC Institute for Basic Medical Science, The Catholic Medical Center, The Catholic University of Korea
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
Burr hole; Computer simulation; Electric field; In silico modeling; Neuromodulation; tDCS;
D O I
10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.109366
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has emerged as a promising tool for stroke rehabilitation, supported by evidence demonstrating its beneficial effects on post-stroke recovery. However, patients with skull defects, such as burr holes, have been excluded from tDCS due to limited knowledge regarding the effect of skull defects on the electric field. Objective: We investigated the effect of burr holes on the electric field induced by tDCS and identified the electrode location that modulates the electric field. Methods: We generated mesh models of the heads of five patients with burr holes and five age-matched control patients who had never undergone brain surgery, based on magnetic resonance imaging. Then we conducted tDCS simulations, with the cathode fixed in one position and the anode in various positions. Regression analysis was employed to investigate the relationship between the electric field at the burr hole and the distance from the burr hole to the anode. Results: In patients with burr holes, the electric field intensity increased as the anode approached the burr hole, reaching a maximum electric field when the anode covered it, with this pattern remaining consistent across all patient models. Assuming the holes were filled with cerebrospinal fluid, the maximum electric field was 1.20 ± 0.20 V/m (mean ± standard deviation, SD). When the anode was positioned more than 60 mm away from the burr hole, the electric field at the burr hole remained low and constant, with an average value of 0.29 ± 0.04V/m (mean ± SD). In contrast, for all patients without burr holes, the electric field intensity stayed constant regardless of the anode's position, with a maximum amplitude of 0.36 ± 0.04 V/m (mean ± SD). Furthermore, when the burr hole was assumed to be filled with scar tissue, the mean peak electric field was 0.93 ± 0.16 V/m, indicating that the electric field strength varies depending on the conductivity of the tissue filling the burr hole. Conclusion: Based on the simulations, the minimum recommended distance from the burr hole to the anode is 60 mm to prevent unintended stimulation of the brain cortex during tDCS. These findings will contribute to the development of safe and effective tDCS treatments for patients with burr holes. © 2024
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]  
Wagner T., Fregni F., Fecteau S., Grodzinsky A., Zahn M., Pascual-Leone A., Transcranial direct current stimulation: a computer-based human model study, Neuroimage, 35, pp. 1113-1124, (2007)
[2]  
Mosayebi-Samani M., Jamil A., Salvador R., Ruffini G., Haueisen J., Nitsche M.A., The impact of individual electrical fields and anatomical factors on the neurophysiological outcomes of tDCS: a TMS-MEP and MRI study, Brain Stimul., 14, pp. 316-326, (2021)
[3]  
Minjoli S., Saturnino G.B., Blicher J.U., Stagg C.J., Siebner H.R., Antunes A., Thielscher A., The impact of large structural brain changes in chronic stroke patients on the electric field caused by transcranial brain stimulation, Neuroimage Clin, 15, pp. 106-117, (2017)
[4]  
Laakso I., Tanaka S., Koyama S., De Santis V., Hirata A., Inter-subject variability in electric fields of motor cortical tDCS, Brain Stimul., 8, pp. 906-913, (2015)
[5]  
Opitz A., Paulus W., Will S., Antunes A., Thielscher A., Determinants of the electric field during transcranial direct current stimulation, Neuroimage, 109, pp. 140-150, (2015)
[6]  
Bikson M., Rahman A., Datta A., Computational models of transcranial direct current stimulation, Clin. EEG Neurosci., 43, pp. 176-183, (2012)
[7]  
Guillen A., Truong D.Q., Datta A., Huang Y., Optimized high-definition tDCS in patients with skull defects and skull plates, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 17, (2023)
[8]  
Sun W., Dong X., Yu G., Shuai L., Yuan Y., Ma C., Transcranial direct current stimulation in patients after decompressive craniectomy: a finite element model to investigate factors affecting the cortical electric field, J. Int. Med. Res., 49, (2021)
[9]  
Yoon M.J., Park H.J., Yoo Y.J., Oh H.M., Im S., Kim T.W., Lim S.H., Electric field simulation and appropriate electrode positioning for optimized transcranial direct current stimulation of stroke patients: an in Silico model, Sci. Rep., 14, (2024)
[10]  
Lefaucheur J.P., Antal A., Ayache S.S., Benninger D.H., Brunelin J., Cogiamanian F., Cotelli M., De Ridder D., Ferrucci R., Langguth B., Marangolo P., Mylius V., Nitsche M.A., Padberg F., Palm U., Poulet E., Priori A., Rossi S., Schecklmann M., Vanneste S., Ziemann U., Garcia-Larrea L., Paulus W., Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), Clin. Neurophysiol., 128, pp. 56-92, (2017)