ABSTRACT
Persisting imbalance and falls in community-dwelling traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivors – typically related to vestibular dysfunction - are linked to reduced long-term survival and re-employment rates. However, a detailed understanding of the impact of TBI upon the brain mechanisms mediating imbalance is lacking. To understand the state of the art concerning the brain mechanisms mediating imbalance in TBI, we performed a systematic review of the literature.
PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched and peer-reviewed research articles in humans, with any severity of TBI (mild, moderate, severe, or concussion), that linked a postural balance assessment (objective or subjective) with brain imaging (via CT, MRI, MRS, SPECT, EEG, MEG, NIRS, and evoked potentials) were included. Out of 1940 articles, 60 were retrieved and screened, and 25 were included in the systematic review. 17 of those were MRI-based studies (e.g., DTI, fMRI), 4 EEG studies, 3 fNIRS studies, and 1 study used both MRI and EEG.
The most consistent MRI finding was the link between imbalance and cerebellum, however, the regions within the cerebellum were not consistent. Functional changes in EEG studies were non-specific as all frequency bands were reportedly linked with balance. The findings from fNIRS studies were concentrated in frontal regions as these studies only used ROI analysis. Notably, only one study reported performing clinical vestibular assessment to exclude peripheral vestibular dysfunction.
In conclusion, the lack of consistent findings could reflect that imbalance in TBI is due to a brain network dysfunction in contrast to focal cortical damage. Notably, the inconsistency in the reported findings may be attributed to heterogeneity of methodology e.g., data analytical techniques, small sample sizes, and choice of control groups. Future studies should include a detailed clinical phenotyping of vestibular function in TBI patients, ideally in an acute prospective manner, to exclude peripheral disorders. Choosing the appropriate control groups (i.e., well characterized patient subgroups as controls) would ensure that the findings are specific to imbalance rather than being non-specifically linked to TBI. Moreover, a whole-brain imaging analysis (vs ROI) is recommended to reduce selection bias and is also important since TBI affects the brain in a widespread manner.
1 Introduction
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the commonest cause of chronic disability in young adults (Langlois et al., 2006). TBI can result in vestibular dysfunction with dizziness and/or postural imbalance in up to 86% of patients acutely (Marcus et al., 2019). About 50% of TBI report imbalance at 5 years (Berman & Fredrickson, 1978) with additional socioeconomic impacts such as reduced return-to-work rates (Chamelian & Feinstein, 2004; Maskell et al., 2006). Patients are often unaware of their poor balance e.g., 50% of patients with clinically apparent gait ataxia did not report feeling unbalanced (Marcus et al., 2019; Sargeant et al., 2018; Wood et al., 2022). This can also be observed during clinical evaluation as a “vestibular agnosia”, where patients with manifest peripheral vestibular activation report little or no vertigo, and hence, vestibular dysfunction and linked imbalance in TBI could go unnoticed (Calzolari et al., 2021; Rust et al., 2022).
The mechanisms underlying balance deficits in TBI are poorly understood. The vestibular control of balance has multiple levels of vulnerability, from the vestibular organ, the nerve, brainstem and cerebellar circuits, thalamic relay areas, and cortical processing pathways. We recently demonstrated that imbalance in acute TBI was linked to the damage to corpus callosum (genu), anterior corona radiata, and external capsule (Calzolari et al., 2021). That the corpus callosum is particularly susceptible to damage in TBI because of the biomechanics of shear injury (Ghajari et al., 2017; Jolly et al., 2020), explains the observation that imbalance is virtually ubiquitous in acute TBI given its reliance upon corpus callosum integrity (Calzolari et al., 2021). Additionally, cortical processing of vestibular signals is bi-hemispheric and disruption of interhemispheric vestibular pathways (Kirsch et al., 2016) provides a means by which corpus callosal damage can impair balance.
Subcortically, vestibular afferents project to thalamus and basal ganglia (Cai et al., 2018; Stiles & Smith, 2015), with specific role of pedunculopontine nucleus (PPN) in postural balance whose neurons show high levels of vestibular reactivity (Aravamuthan & Angelaki, 2012), as implicated in the neurodegenerative diseases (i.e., Parkinson’s) (Bohnen et al., 2012; Müller et al., 2013). Indeed, Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients with severe imbalance display a vestibular agnosia and direct PPN stimulation (Yousif et al., 2016) could improve their vestibular agnosia and balance, indicating that damage or disconnection of PPN may be involved in impaired central vestibular processing resulting in impaired postural control.
Clinically well characterized TBI cohort is of critical importance for studying brain mechanisms mediating postural imbalance post-TBI. This includes the exclusion and/or treating peripheral vestibular disorders and non-specific diagnoses such as vestibular migraine. Without detailed acute clinical assessment of the TBI patients prior to neuroimaging, any measured imbalance will likely be confounded by undiagnosed and untreated peripheral disorders. A lack of established mechanism explaining postural imbalance in TBI could thus be attributed to inconsistencies in (a) detailed clinical phenotyping and excluding (or treating) patients with additional peripheral vestibular dysfunction and the secondary impact of adaptation (Conrad et al., 2022; Dieterich et al., 2007; Dieterich & Brandt, 2008; Helmchen et al., 2014) and maladaptation (Trinidade et al., 2023) upon brain correlates; (b) variation in brain imaging modality (e.g. fMRI, DTI, EEG); (c) type of analysis (e.g. whole-brain, region of interest) (Surgent et al., 2019); and (d) type of balance assessment (e.g. objective posturography, subjective scales).
Thus, we performed this systematic review to: i) synthesize the evidence linking brain imaging with imbalance in TBI to provide understanding of underlying brain mechanisms that mediate postural imbalance in TBI; and ii) identify the limitations of current literature to provide direction for future studies.
2 Methods
We followed PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021) while performing this systematic review. The complete PRISMA checklist is provided at the end of manuscript.
2.1 Eligibility
Inclusion criteria for studies was: 1) articles: peer-reviewed research articles; 2) participants: humans with traumatic brain injury of any severity (concussion, mild, mild-moderate, moderate, moderate-severe, or severe) and any age group; 3) balance assessment: performed balance assessment (subjective scales or objective measurement (e.g. COP based measures)); 4) brain imaging: performed either magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, fMRI, DTI), computed tomography (CT, SPECT), positron emission tomography (PET), magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), electro- or magneto-encephalography (EEG/MEG), or near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS, fNIRS); 5) performed analysis linking balance measures (objective or subjective) with brain imaging; 6) articles in English language; 7) studies with any design are included (acute or chronic and prospective, cross-sectional, or interventional). Exclusion criteria was failing inclusion criteria, case reports, conference proceedings, research reports, and letter to the editors.
When studies used subjective symptom scales that included questions about vestibular dysfunction (including imbalance), then the study was only included if it performed an analysis linking vestibular subdomain score of the subjective scale with the brain imaging.
2.2 Literature Search
A literature search was conducted by first author using Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science core collection, and Web of Science All databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science core collection, BIOSIS Citation Index, CABI: CAB Abstracts, SciELO Citation Index) from the inception of these databases until 14 March 2023. The detailed search terms for each database are provided in the appendix section.
2.3 Data Extraction
For the studies retrieved for detailed screening, notes were tabulated indicating inclusion or exclusion and the reason for decision by ZH, which were independently reviewed by MM. A detailed summary of the included studies was then prepared, after which the study details were tabulated. The first author (with suggestions from MM and BMS) then extracted following information from studies that were included in the systematic review: 1) study and participant characteristics; 2) scanning parameters; 3) methodological characteristics; and 4) findings reported in studies.
In terms of study and participant characteristics, we extracted information regarding first author, year of publication, study design, age, sample size, and gender for both patient and control groups. Additionally, for patients we extracted time from injury to behavioural testing, time from injury to scan, the information regarding the mode of injury (e.g., fall, traffic accident etc.), details of injury severity, and the information regarding clinical vestibular assessment and clinical scales.
For MRI studies, we also extracted information about scanning parameters including scanner vendor, magnetic field strength, number of head coil channels, type of scan (i.e., diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), resting state etc.), repetition time (TR), echo time (TE), data matrix, field of view (FOV), voxel size, and number of slices. For DTI, we further extracted information regarding diffusion directions, b-value, and number of b0 images. Moreover, number of volumes was also extracted for resting state scans. We also extracted information regarding type of imaging analysis (regions of interest (ROI), whole brain etc), balance assessments, and lastly, we extracted information about the findings showing link between brain imaging and balance assessments within TBI or comparison of TBI with controls. If multiple measures were used and reported, we extracted information for all measures and all reported findings.
For EEG/fNIRS/MEG studies, we extracted information about recording setup (electrode cap, amplifier, sampling frequency, choice of ground- and reference-electrodes, electrode locations, and the analysis software. Moreover, we also extracted information about the balance measure and the EEG/fNIRS/MEG measure used for analysis, and the electrodes that were included in the analysis.
2.4 Quality Assessment
We used the risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized studies (RoBANS) (Kim et al., 2013). The studies were rated for selection bias due to inadequate selection of study participants, controlling for confounding variables, measurement of exposure, blinding of outcome assessments, incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), and reporting bias (selective reporting of outcomes). Two authors (ZH and MM) rated the studies for risk of bias and in case of disagreement, ratings were discussed and agreed upon with the senior author (BMS).
3 Results
3.1 Study Selection
Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flowchart (Haddaway et al., 2022) for the selection procedure. Our search resulted in a total of 1940 articles (415 articles from PubMed, 548 from Scopus, 429 from web of science core collection, and 548 from web of science all databases). 60 full-length articles were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. After excluding 35 articles that failed inclusion criteria, a total of 25 articles were included in this systematic review.
PRISMA flowchart of the selection procedure.
3.2 Study and Participant Characteristics
The study and participant characteristics of MRI studies are detailed in Table 1 and the clinical characteristics of injury are stated in Table 2. Importantly, due to limited EEG/fNIRS studies, and focus solely on “concussed” individuals, we decided not to compare or critically appraise EEG/fNIRS data to other imaging modalities. However, the characteristics of EEG/fNIRS studies and their findings are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively.
It is important to highlight that there was only one MRI acute-prospective study of moderate-severe TBI (Calzolari et al., 2021). Moreover, there were only two studies in the general population of age 18-65 (Calzolari et al., 2021; Handiru et al., 2021). Most of the other studies (n = 8) were in young athletes or children/adolescents. Since most of the studies performed comparisons with control group (between-group analysis), the sample sizes of studies were considered small to medium with only two studies having relatively larger sample of patients n = 95 (Adam et al., 2015) and n = 62 (Kaushal et al., 2019), where n = 51 were included in MRI analysis in (Kaushal et al., 2019). Most importantly, peripheral vestibular dysfunction (i.e., problem with vestibular organ or vestibular nerve) or other vestibular diagnoses e.g., vestibular migraine, were not ruled out in any of the studies nor was it mentioned as exclusion criteria, except in one study (Calzolari et al., 2021).
Three MRI studies used a partially overlapping patient cohort (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010, 2011, 2012), and five other MRI studies also used a partially overlapping patient cohort (Caeyenberghs et al., 2015; Diez et al., 2017; Drijkoningen et al., 2015a; Drijkoningen et al., 2015b; Liang et al., 2021). This is based on a detailed comparison of participant information, and injury details stated in these articles (i.e., demographics, GCS score, injury specifics on MRI and CT). Only one study (Liang et al., 2021) explicitly declared the use of data collected and published previously (Drijkoningen et al., 2015a).
3.3 Quality Assessment
Selection of participants
Methodological quality of the studies is visualized in Figure 2 using robvis tool (McGuinness & Higgins, 2021). Two studies (Handiru et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2019) included TBI patients with mild and moderate or higher severity in same analysis; moreover, mode of injury (i.e., fall, traffic accident etc.) for patients is also not available in both studies. Kim et al., 2019 included 7 moderate and 8 mild TBI in the brain imaging analyses and also also reported to not have obtained informed consent of study participants due to retrospective nature of the study. Handiru et al., 2021 originally had a sample of n =17 (3 mild, 3 moderate, 3 moderate/severe (diagnosis not confirmed), and 8 severe TBI), however, only n = 12 were included in the imaging analysis. The proportions of mild, moderate, or severe TBI in this sample of n = 12 were not stated in the study. Given that moderate-severe TBI patients’ structural imaging analysis is more likely to influence the findings as compared to mild TBI and for reasons listed above, we decided to rate (Handiru et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2019) as “high risk” for selection of participants. (Kaushal et al., 2019) did not specify the gender of study participants and was thus rated as “unclear risk” on selection of study participants. While (Delano-Wood et al., 2015) combined the analysis of moderate TBI patients (n = 5) and mild TBI (n = 33), they report that the inclusion or removal of the moderate severity TBI did not affect the results. Calzolari et al., 2021 had 4 participants with mild-probable TBI severity in a sample of n = 37, however, a subsample of n = 30 of 37 was included in imaging analysis such that only 2 mild/probable TBI were included in analysis, and thus we considered it to be a “low risk”.
Quality Assessment of Studies using ROBANS risk of bias assessment tool.
Hou et al., 2022 used US departments of defense (DoD) and veteran affairs (VA) criteria to classify patients as “mild to moderate” TBI. Notably, DOD/VA criteria differentiates between “mild” and “moderate” but does not specify a category label of “mild to moderate”. Thus, the proportions of mild or moderate TBI patients were not explicitly stated in the study (Hou et al., 2022). Moreover, as the study was an interventional study, there was no control group to assess whether the pre-post intervention change of balance outcome in the patients is not due to test-retest variability. Thus, due to lack of information regarding injury classification and the lack of appropriate control group, we rated Hou et al., 2022 as “high risk” on selection of participants.
Since mild/concussed TBI patients, as classified based on absence of CT abnormalities, could still have MRI abnormalities, the studies with mild and concussed athletes were also rated as “unclear risk” in case: i) if they did not explicitly state exclusion of participants with a lesion or incidental MRI finding; or ii) if the mTBI/concussion definition did not explicitly address exclusion of imaging findings. Lancaster et al., 2018 used the US DOD definition of “mild” TBI to define sports related concussion. Notably, US DOD definition requires normal brain imaging for participants to be considered mild TBI, however, the definition stated in Lancaster et al., 2018 does not include any mention of normal brain imaging as inclusion criteria. Similarly, Wang et al., 2019 stated no details in study regarding the definition of injury or concussion. Thus, both of these studies were rated as “unclear risk” on selection of participants.
Control for confounding variables
In reference to accounting for confounding variables, none of the studies mapped the lesions in their analysis. Adam et al., 2015 stated that no MRI abnormalities were detected in participants whereas Liang et al. 2021 explicitly addressed the issue of lesion mapping and given the heterogenous lesions among their participants, they chose to not perform lesion masking. Similarly, Calzolari et al., 2021 chose not to perform lesion mapping since some of the severe TBI patients did not show lesions. Since lesion volume could instead be used as a confound regressor (given the heterogeneity of lesions in TBI), all studies that did not account for lesions or did not explicitly address the issue of lesion mapping were rated as “unclear risk” for confounding variables.
3.4 Scanning Characteristics
The details of scanning parameters of MRI studies are listed in Table 3. All studies used a 3T scanner except one study (Adam et al., 2015) that used 1.5T scanner. There was one study (Wang et al., 2019) that used arterial spin labelling (ASL), which is an fMRI technique, and also had two different study sites with 4 mm and 4.5 mm slice thickness. Notably, Wang et al., 2019 and Kaushal et al., 2019 only reported slice thickness but did not report voxel sizes of the scans acquired. Two resting-state studies (Bittencourt et al., 2022; Hou et al., 2022) also had voxel size of 3.5 mm (isotropic) that were relatively larger than other studies.
3.5 Methodological Characteristics
Balance assessments
The measure used for balance assessment, type of analyses used for analysing MRI images, and the imaging metric used for correlating with balance measure are listed in Table 4. Seven studies used subjective balance scales, of which four studies used BESS (Adam et al., 2015; Kaushal et al., 2019; Lancaster et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019), one study used M-ABC (Caeyenberghs et al., 2011), one study used NSI-vestibular subscale (Delano-Wood et al., 2015), and one study used HISC (vestibular sub-domain) (Bittencourt et al., 2022). One study (Handiru et al., 2021) used both, a subjective (Berg balance scale – BBS) and objective balance assessment (posturography).
Nine studies used objective balance assessments, of which five studies used sensory organization test (SOT) (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010, 2012, 2015; Hou et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2021), two studies used posturography (Calzolari et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2019), and three studies used SOT, limits of stability (LOS) test, and rhythmic weight shift (RWS) test, together (Diez et al., 2017; Drijkoningen et al., 2015a; Drijkoningen et al., 2015b).
Types of brain imaging analyses
Six studies used selected ROIs for the analysis (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010, 2011; Delano-Wood et al., 2015; Drijkoningen et al., 2015a; Drijkoningen et al., 2015b; Hou et al., 2022). Caeyenberghs et al., 2010 used nine subcortical white-matter tracts/regions as ROIs including superior-middle-inferior cerebellar peduncles (SCP, MCP, ICP), cerebellum, brainstem, pons, corticospinal tract (CST), medial lemniscus (ML), cerebral peduncles (CP), and three cortical white-matter tracts anterior-posterior limb of the internal capsule (ALIC, PLIC), and posterior thalamic radiation (PTR). Caeyenberghs et al., 2011 used seven sub-cortical ROIs including CST, SCP, ICP, CP, thalamus, cerebellum, brain stem, and four cortical ROIs including corpus callosum (CC), anterior corona radiata (ACR), ALIC, and PLIC. Drijkoningen et al., 2015a mainly focused on subcortical ROIs including SCP, MCP, ICP, and cerebellum. Similarly, Drijkoningen et al., 2015b also only focused on subcortical ROIs including cerebellum and brain stem. Delano-Wood et al., 2015 also used subcortical tracts as ROIs including CST, pontine tegmentum, ML, and central tegmental tract. Hou et al., 2022 used 35 ROIs from sensory/somatomotor resting state network atlas, 31 ROIs from visual network, and 4 ROIs from cerebellar network.
Four studies performed whole-brain analysis at ROI level (Adam et al., 2015; Caeyenberghs et al., 2012; Kaushal et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019) and six studies performed whole-brain voxel level analysis (Caeyenberghs et al., 2015; Calzolari et al., 2021; Handiru et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2019; Lancaster et al., 2018; Liang et al., 2021).
3.6 MRI Measures Linked to Balance Assessments
The findings of the studies linking brain imaging with balance assessments are listed in Table 5 and are detailed in text below.
3.6.1 Findings in Studies Using Selected ROIs
Five studies using selected ROIs (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010, 2011; Delano-Wood et al., 2015; Drijkoningen et al., 2015a; Drijkoningen et al., 2015b) reported significant link of imaging measures with balance whereas one study found no link (Hou et al., 2022). Caeyenberghs et al., 2010 reported lower fractional anisotropy (FA) values linked to poor balance of TBI patients in: 1) SCP, ALIC, cerebellum, and ML during the eyes-open with fixed surface and surround condition; 2) MCP during eyes open with fixed surface but sway referenced visual surround. Caeyenberghs et al., 2011 also found that lower FA values linked to poor balance but in the CST. Drijkoningen et al., 2015a studied the effect of balance training and found: 1) at baseline, low FA in cerebellum and SCP, and high medial diffusivity (MD) values in MCP and SCP, were linked to poor balance of TBI patients in RWS test; 2) within TBI patients, lower FA in ICP at baseline linked to improved balance scores post-training in the LOS test (uncorrected for multiple comparisons); 3) within TBI patients, the increased performance in RWS test after training was linked to increase in FA values of ICP.
Drijkoningen et al., 2015b only used cerebellum and brain stem as selected ROIs and found: 1) within TBI, worse RWS test performance was linked to lower grey matter volume in vermal and paravermal regions of cerebellum lobule I-IV, V, and VI; 2) correlation between RWS performance of all participants (controls and TBI) showed that worse RWS performance linked to lower grey matter volume in vermal and paravermal regions of cerebellum lobules I-IV, V, and VI and to lower white-matter volume in pons, dorsal medulla, midbrain (tegmentum), SCP, MCP/pons, MCP/cerebellar white-matter; 3) correlation between SOT performance of all participants (controls and TBI) showed that worse SOT performance linked to lower white matter volume in MCP/pons.
Delano-Wood et al., 2015 reported that lower FA in pontine tegmentum linked with poor vestibular sub-scale score within TBI patients, however, there were no group differences between TBI and controls in the diffusion parameters of the three selected ROIs.
3.6.2 Findings in Studies Using Whole-Brain Analysis
Five studies that performed whole-brain analysis (at voxel- or ROI-level) reported no link of imaging measures with balance measures (Adam et al., 2015; Handiru et al., 2021; Kaushal et al., 2019; Lancaster et al., 2018; Liang et al., 2021). Bittencourt et al., 2022 reported link of vestibular sub-scores in HISC-scale with brain regions i.e., left mid temporal gyrus within cognitive/language resting state functional network (nb: language network contains regions considered important for vestibular processing i.e., superior, middle, and inferior temporal gyri), and cerebellum VI and crus I within visual & cerebellar resting state functional network. Caeyenberghs et al., 2012 performed a graph theoretical analysis and reported that lower connectivity degree values linked with poor balance of TBI patients in SOT test (composite score of all balance conditions) in the superior parietal gyrus; whereas in condition with compromised visual and proprioceptive feedback, low connectivity degree was linked to poor balance in superior parietal gyrus and cerebellar lobule IX. Caeyenberghs et al., 2015 reported that: 1) in condition with eyes open and compromised proprioception, poor balance scores were linked to lower long-range functional connectivity density (FCD) of left putamen within TBI patients, as well as in all participants (controls and TBI); 2) in condition with both vision and proprioception compromised, poor balance scores were linked to lower long-range functional connectivity density (FCD) of right cerebellar vermis I-II within TBI patients, right cerebllar vermis I-II, and right cerebllum III in all participants (controls and TBI).
Calzolari et al., 2021, compared acute TBI patients with impaired balance versus acute TBI patients with normal balance, whereby the normal range was based upon a healthy matched controls’ posturography performance standing on a soft-surface with eyes closed. Calzolari et al., 2021 reported that: 1) FA was lower in genu of corpus callosum and left anterior corona radiata when comparing TBI with impaired balance to TBI with normal balance; 2) MD was higher in the genu of the corpus callosum, left anterior corona radiata, and external capsule when comparing TBI with impaired balance to TBI with normal balance. The remaining findings from Calzolari et al., 2021 are detailed in Table 5 due to numerous other comparisons.
Diez et al., 2017 reported that increased dynamic BOLD activation of a prefrontal network was linked to poor balance. Kim et al., 2019 reported that poor balance score (during standing on soft-surface with eyes-closed) linked with lower axial diffusivity (AD) in left ICP. Wang et al., 2019 reported that poor scores in BESS linked with increased relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) in left occipital gyrus in TBI.
3.7 Statistical considerations
All studies’ statistical analyses were reviewed and only notable practices, such as the absence of multiple comparison correction or absence of direct comparison with appropriate control groups, are mentioned here.
Caeyenberghs 2015 et al., performed correlations between the balance measures and the brain regions that were significantly different between controls and TBI patients. Notably, these correlations were performed within groups i.e., a correlation of balance measure with fucntional imaging connectivity measure within the patient group, and within the control group. Similar correlation was also performed with all participants included in same analysis (patients and controls combined). However, a direct statistical comparison of correlations, indicating whether the correlation of balance measure with imaging connectivity measure was statistically different between control and patient groups, was not listed.
From Calzolari et al., 2021, we included results from 8 (of 19) statistical comparisons reported in the study, which were relevant to this systematic review i.e., comparisons linking brain imaging measures and balance measures. Four of these comparisons were performed using FA and four using MD diffusion imaging measures. The 8 comparisons included two correlation contrasts within all TBI patients, 2 correlation contrasts including all participants (patients & controls together), two comparisons of “TBI patients with impaired balance” with healthy controls, and two comparisons within TBI patients (“TBI with impaired balance” vs “TBI with normal balance”). However, the study does not indicate that if the comparisons were corrected for the number of total comparisons performed.
Delano-wood et al., 2015 found no significant difference between TBI and controls in the functional connectivity of selected ROIs. Despite the lack of a group difference, a within patient correlation of the NSI (vestibular subscale) with FA values was performed in the study. A direct statistical comparison, indicating whether the correlation of imaging connectivity measure and balance measure in patients was statistically different from that of healthy controls, was not available.
Diez et al., 2017 performed correlation of three balance measures with connectivity of a functional network. However, the study did not explicitly state that the p-values were corrected for three comparisons.
Two of the five significant findings reported in Drijkoningen et al., 2015a (and included in this systematic review) were labeled as exploratory analysis without correction for multiple comparisons. Notably, correlations of DTI measures and balance measuers were performed separately in TBI, and the control groups, and the direct statistical comparison indicating a statistical difference in correlations of the two groups was not available.
Drijkoningen et al., 2015b linked the three balance measures (SOT, LOS, RWS) with subcortical ROIs in all participants’ grey- and white-matter as well as within TBI group only. The findings were not significant for the correlations within controls and were not reported. The study does not indicate if the p-values used in the study for indicating statistical significance, were corrected for the total number of comparisons.
Kim et al., 2019 performed a comparison of diffusion imaging scans between patient and a control group, resulting in 6 significant findings (of which 4 were unique brain regions); and then the diffusion parameters from these significant brain regions were correlated with balance scores. However, only one correlation of a DTI measure with the balance measure is reported (within TBI group) without explicit mention of correction for multiple comparisons.
Wang et al., 2019 also performed within group (patients only) correlational analysis and used a cluster height threshold of p < 0.05; but also reported that the findings did not survive correction at cluster height threshold of p < 0.01.
3.8 EEG & fNIRS Studies
Notably, there were 5 EEG and 3 fNIRS studies that we found as part of the systematic review (Handiru et al., 2021; Helmich et al., 2020; Helmich et al., 2016; Jacob et al., 2022; Slobounov et al., 2012; Teel et al., 2014; Thompson et al., 2005; Urban et al., 2020). The comparisons within these studies were often between TBI patients vs healthy controls (Handiru et al., 2021; Helmich et al., 2016; Teel et al., 2014; Thompson et al., 2005; Urban et al., 2020) or in patients with and without concussion (Helmich et al., 2016, 2020). EEG studies reported link of imbalance with decrease of beta, delta, and theta (Teel et al., 2014) as well as decrease of alpha (Slobounov et al., 2012). Similar decrease in delta was also reported in one other study in concussed individuals (Thompson et al., 2005). One study reported a negative correlation between theta band modularity (a graph-theoretical measure) and BBS (Handiru et al., 2021), whereas one study found no EEG changes linked to imbalance (Jacob et al., 2022). The findings of the three fNIRS (Helmich et al., 2020; Helmich et al., 2016; Urban et al., 2020) studies were predominantly in the frontal regions, mainly because the electrodes were only placed on frontal ROIs. Thus, due to limited studies, all of which focused on concussed athletes (except one), we avoided discussing these studies in context of the imaging findings in mild-moderate-severe TBI. The study characteristics and the findings from these studies are listed in Table 6 and Table 7.
3.9 Excluded Studies
There were 26 full length articles (out of 35 excluded articles) relevant to the topic that were retrieved but excluded after detailed screening as they did not fulfil inclusion criteria. They are briefly mentioned here as per the PRISMA protocol. Some studies performed a balance assessment and brain imaging but were excluded as they did not state whether an analysis linking brain imaging and balance measure is performed (Churchill et al., 2017; Churchill et al., 2021; Hammeke et al., 2013; Jang, Kim, et al., 2016; Jang, Yi, et al., 2016; Meier et al., 2020; Muftuler et al., 2020; Vartanian et al., 2021). Some of the studies either did not report data from postural balance assessment (Charney et al., 2020; Madaan et al., 2021; Madhavan et al., 2019; Sours et al., 2015; Toth et al., 2021; Weng et al., 2017) or from brain imaging (Shetty et al., 2018). One study focused on acquired brain injury and thus also had stroke patients (n = 22) combined with TBI (n = 9) (Joubran et al., 2022) whereas one study looked at working memory of TBI with impaired balance (Woytowicz et al., 2018). One study mainly looked at the link between poor sleep and number and volume of perivascular spaces (PVS) but also reported link of PVS with balance (using a symptom scale); however, the study did not report or link it with grey- or white-matter regions or networks in the brain (Piantino et al., 2021). There were 8 EEG based studies that did not fulfil inclusion criteria (Allexandre et al., 2019; Devilbiss et al., 2019; Handiru et al., 2022; Howell et al., 2018; Seo et al., 2011; Slobounov et al., 2005; van der Veen et al., 2023; Walter et al., 2017).
4 Discussion
This systematic review focused on identifying brain regions that are linked to postural imbalance in TBI patients, with the aim to understand underlying brain mechanisms that could explain imbalance in TBI. However, the findings from this systematic review are quite heterogeneous with low consistency in findings reported by the studies included in review. Below we first critically appraise the important methodological characteristics of studies and highlight the need for clinically well-characterized patient cohorts. We then discuss the findings reported by the studies in light of previous literature, the reproducible findings among these studies, as well as current limitations, and the recommendations for future studies.
4.1 Cohort – timing of recruitment, clinical assessment, and treatment
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the commonest cause of injury related death and disability, where c. 60 million people have a TBI every year (Maas et al., 2017, 2022) with further increased falls risk post-TBI (Elser et al., 2023). Despite the post-TBI falls related risks, we only found one acute-prospective study in moderate-severe TBI that assessed post-TBI vestibular-mediated balance problems and its brain mechanisms via neuroimaging (Calzolari et al., 2021). Given that TBI is common in relatively young adults (Calzolari et al., 2021; Marcus et al., 2019; Rust et al., 2022) and results in socio-economic costs of up to US$400 billion (Maas et al., 2022), it is also surprising to notice the lack of studies that assessed vestibular-mediated balance problems and their brain mechanisms in the general population ranging between 18-65 years (Calzolari et al., 2021; Handiru et al., 2021).
Notably, none of the studies included in this systematic review, except (Calzolari et al., 2021), performed or reported about acutely performed clinical vestibular assessment of peripheral vestibular damage or diagnoses such as benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). Recent work shows that there is a high burden of vestibular disorders in TBI, both from central injury and peripheral injury including BPPV (Calzolari et al., 2021; Harrell et al., 2023; Marcus et al., 2019) and vestibular nerve transection (Arshad et al., 2017; Marcus et al., 2019) as well as associated diagnoses such as vestibular migraine (Marcus et al., 2019), whose commonest manifestation is objective imbalance (Von Brevern et al., 2005).
Even though the cross-sectional studies of moderate-severe TBI in this review had average time of circa three years from injury to testing, some patients were also tested as early as four months after the injury (Diez et al., 2017; Drijkoningen et al., 2015a; Drijkoningen et al., 2015b). Notably, previously reported recurrence rate of BPPV was up to 67% in TBI (Calzolari et al., 2021; Gordon et al., 2004), which was supplemented by recent studies showing that recurrence can occur in a period ranging from up to four (Smith et al., 2020) to six months (Hadi et al., 2023 – in preparation; recurrence rate of 31.6%) post-TBI. It follows that any study aiming to understand the brain correlates of imbalance should assess all these clinical features both acutely and at follow-up to exclude or treat patients for these additional vestibular diagnoses, prior to balance and imaging assessment. Additionally, some maladaptive syndromes that are linked to imbalance e.g., persistent postural perceptual dizziness or PPPD (Seemungal & Passamonti, 2018), may also develop chronically and must be controlled for in chronic TBI studies.
Notably, characterization of injury severity is key for TBI studies. In this review, multiple studies were rated as high risk on selection of participants due to lack of details on how the injury severity was defined. Combining brain imaging of mild and moderate TBI within same analysis can be problematic as moderate TBI often have more structural imaging deficits compared to mild. In that case, brain imaging findings are more likely to be driven by severe injury in moderate TBI and are less likely to reflect the brain imaging changes in mild TBI.
4.2 Reproducible Findings
The most consistent findings reported in this systematic review are mainly from six studies (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015; Drijkoningen et al., 2015a; Drijkoningen et al., 2015b) from the same research centre or authors, with partially overlapping patient cohorts across the studies (nb: some studies also showed a complete overlap of sample (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010, 2011, 2012) but since authors were not contacted to confirm this nor the authors declared it in the respective articles, we do not definitely state this). Caeyenberghs et al., 2010 used selected ROIs for analysis and Caeyenberghs et al., 2012 performed a whole brain analysis of DTI imaging. The cerebellum was shown to link with imbalance in both studies (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010, 2012) but findings showing link of SCP, ALIC, ML, and MCP with balance, were not reproduced in the whole brain analysis in Caeyenberghs et al., 2012. Similarly, the findings from Caeyenberghs et al., 2011 were not consistent with those reported in (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010, 2012), which could be due to a bigger sample of patients in Caeyenberghs et al., 2011 (n = 24) compared to n = 12 in (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010, 2012).
In the five studies with another partially overlapping patient cohort (Caeyenberghs et al., 2015; Diez et al., 2017; Drijkoningen et al., 2015a; Drijkoningen et al., 2015b; Liang et al., 2021), the sample size varied from having n = 12 (Caeyenberghs et al., 2015), n = 14 (Diez et al., 2017), n = 19 (Drijkoningen et al., 2015a), n = 18 (Drijkoningen et al., 2015b), and n = 17 (Liang et al., 2021). Three of these studies performed whole-brain analysis using DTI (Liang et al., 2021), resting-state (Caeyenberghs et al., 2015), and both, DTI and resting-state together (Diez et al., 2017).
Liang et al., 2021 found no associations between changes in white-matter and improved balance performance after training, and also reported no baseline associations between balance measures and diffusion imaging parameters. Notably, Diez et al., 2017 found a link of SOT score with a prefrontal functional networks, whereas, Caeyenberghs et al., 2015 reported a link of balance measures with regions such as putamen and cerebellum; yet all of these findings were not overlapping, despite the partial overlap in the sample of patients. Drijkoningen et al., 2015a and Drijkoningen et al., 2015b performed analysis within selected ROIs, mostly subcortical. Cerebellum, SCP, and MCP were found to be linked with imbalance in both studies, however, no sub-regions of cerebellum were reported in Drijkoningen et al., 2015a. The cerebellar lobules reported in Drijkoningen et al., 2015b are not consistent with findings of Caeyenberghs et al., 2015, which only found cerebellum lobule IX to be linked with imbalance.
In general, despite selecting participants from a patient cohort pool with partial or complete overlap in paticipants between studies, the findings do not overlap within these eight studies (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015; Diez et al., 2017; Drijkoningen et al., 2015a; Drijkoningen et al., 2015b; Liang et al., 2021). While the lack of reproducibility can be attributed to the methodological differences or low sample sizes, a general lack of reproducible findings in overlapping patients maybe due to factors beyond simple methodology, inlcuding maladaptive clinical disorders (Seemungal & Passamonti, 2018), which may develop over the time such that individual patients’ performance could vary over time.
4.3 Sample Size and Statistical Considerations
Multiple studies performed correlations between balance measures and the brain regions within groups (within controls and within TBI) and with all participants together (controls and TBI combined) (Caeyenberghs et al., 2015; Calzolari et al., 2021; Delano-Wood et al., 2015; Drijkoningen et al., 2015; Drijkoningen et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019). However, a direct statistical comparison of the two groups’ correlation was often missing. Moreover, if studies performed multiple comparisons (multiple contrasts) or had multiple outcomes measures to assess balance, whether the p-values were corrected for multiple contrasts and/or the multiple balance measures was not explicitly stated.
It is worth highlighting that the analysis within TBI sub-groups could be useful, if performed between TBI patients with and without impaired balance, as it could control for TBI specific findings. Only one study in this review performed such analysis, using TBI group without imbalance (n = 11) as a control group and compared it with TBI with imbalance (n = 19) (Calzolari et al., 2021). Notably, two EEG studies (Helmich et al., 2016, 2020) also performed similar analysis to compare balance of mild TBI with and without post-concussive symptoms. However, notice that groups in this case were categorized on the basis of post-concussive symptoms rather than imbalance, and thus the EEG findings during a balance task would reflect the functional brain changes linked to the post-concussive symptoms and not due to imbalance.
The sample sizes of studies we included in this systematic review were considered low, given the recent recommendations of sample sizes for brain wide association studies (Marek et al., 2022; Spisak et al., 2023) . Thus, we include a cautionary note, to interpret the findings from the studies included in this systematic review in context of all available information.
4.4 Imbalance in TBI and proprioception
It is also worth mentioning that none of the studies systematically assessed proprioception. The participant exclusion criteria in studies often listed any “musculoskeletal condition”, but it was not always clear if this was a reference to post-injury “condition”. We also eluded any discussion about proprioception from this review as the knowledge about proprioceptive deficits and its link to imbalance in TBI is sparse; such that a recent study in concussed individuals claimed that the proprioception has never been systematically assessed in concussion (Lempke et al., 2023). Moreover, a search on “Web of Science” relating imbalance, TBI, and proprioception or somatosensory system (without including imaging search terms) only resulted in 29 articles. Within these 29 studies, no study systematically assessed proprioception prospectively and linking it with brain imaging.
Often studies use objective measures such as sensory organization test (SOT) or posturography to assess balance, in which the effect of proprioception is assessed by asking the participants to stand over a “soft surface” such as foam, and thus compromising the proprioceptive feedback. However, this measures the combined contribution of vision and proprioception; and in case where visual feedback is not available (such as when eyes are closed), the combined contribution of vestibular system and proprioception is assessed. Thus, a systematic assessment of proprioception is needed in future studies, which can shed some light on proprioceptive contribution in deficits of postural balance post-TBI.
4.5 Current Evidence of Neural Correlates of Imbalance in TBI
Below we discuss the findings of this systematic review in context of previous literature.
4.5.1 Cerebellum
The recurring finding from all included studies was cerebellum, which was reported in three studies that performed whole-brain analysis (Bittencourt et al., 2022; Caeyenberghs et al., 2012, 2015), and in three studies that used cerebellum as an ROI (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010; Drijkoningen et al., 2015a; Drijkoningen et al., 2015b). However, among these studies, the sub-regions localised within the cerebellum were not consistent. Caeyenberghs et al., 2010 used cerebellum (as a whole) in ROI analysis and thus no specific sub-region is reported.
Caeyenberghs et al., 2012 reported lower connectivity degree (a structural connectivity measure) linked to poor balance in cerebellar lobule IX, which is considered an important site for processing vestibular signals in humans and is often termed as vestibular cerebellum (Barmack, 2003; Kheradmand & Zee, 2011; Nigmatullina et al., 2015). Skilled dancers with high balance ability are also reported to have lower grey matter volume in cerebellum lobule IX (Nigmatullina et al., 2015), which could reflect the important role of cerebellum lobule IX in vestibular function including postural balance. An important consideration is the impact of injury distant to the site of the observed brain imaging effect. In this regard, one study showed that balance impaired individuals due to incomplete spinal cord injury, had reduced volume in cerebellum lobule IX (Villiger et al., 2015), implying a component of this atrophy is secondary Wallerian degeneration from disrupted proprioceptive signal input following spinal cord injury (and hence, it further emphasizes the need for detailed clinical assessment to account for or exclude peripheral vestibular or proprioceptive dysfunction).
Caeyenberghs et al., 2015 reported involvement of cerebellar vermis I-II in mediating postural imbalance in TBI. Cerebellar vermis is considered to be the cerebellum’s most involved zone in mediating postural control (Dijkstra et al., 2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis, looking at studies that performed a mental imagery of a postural task in healthy individuals, reported that 6 out of 8 included studies reported activation in cerebellar vermis (Dijkstra et al., 2020). One study, using mobile PET scan while standing on one foot (Ouchi et al., 1999), showed an increased activation of anterior cerebellar vermis, highlighting the active role of this region in mediating the postural balance.
Drijkoningen et al., 2015a did not report a sub-region in cerebellum whereas Drijkoningen et al., 2015b found that reduced grey- and white-matter volume in cerebellar lobules I-IV, V, and VI were linked to imbalance. Another study included in this review (Bittencourt et al., 2022) reported that post-TBI vestibular symptoms (including imbalance) were linked to altered connectivity of cerebllar lobule VI and crus I. In individuals with balance impairment (incomplete spinal injury (Villiger et al., 2015) & Parkinson’s disease (Sehm et al., 2014)), balance training caused an increase in volume of crebellum lobules V and VI, suggesting their link with balance training and their possible role in post-TBI imbalance. Similarly, reduced volume in cerebellum lobules IV, V, and VI have also been linked to postural imbalance in multiple sclerosis (Prosperini et al., 2013).
4.5.2 Cerebellar Peduncles
The second most consistent finding from the included studies was the cerebellar peduncles including superior, middle, and inferior cerebellar peduncles (SCP, MCP, ICP). SCP and MCP are reported to be linked with imbalance in TBI in the three studies (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010, Drijkoningen et al., 2015a, Drijkoningen et al., 2015b), all of which used SCP and MCP tracts as ROIs whereas ICP was linked with imbalance in two studies (Drijkoningen et al., 2015a, Kim et al., 2019).
One of the study reported that the FA value in ICP increased with balance training (Drijkoningen et al., 2015a). In contrast, a previous study in multiple sclerosis patients with impaired balance (Prosperini et al., 2014), reported that ICP did not show significant improvement in DTI parameters in response to balance training, whereas an increase in FA and radial diffusivity (RD) in SCP was observed. Thus, SCP and ICP seems to be linked with imbalance and may also respond to balance training whereas MCP is only reported to be linked with imbalance on baseline testing of TBI patients but not to balance training. Note that we cannot systematically suggest that MCP is not involved when performing balance training as it is implausible.
Multiple studies in MS patients have previously reported the link between postural deficits and low FA and increased RD values in SCP (Gera et al., 2020), MCP (Odom et al., 2021), and ICP (Gera et al., 2020; Odom et al., 2021); notably, both these studies also used analysis in which cerebellar peduncles were selected as ROIs. Similar association of diffusion parameters with SCP and MCP has also been reported in Parkinson’s disease patients (using SCP, MCP, and ICP as ROIs) with freezing of gait (Bharti et al., 2019), suggesting their link with postural balance in neurodegeneration.
In general, there is existing evidence of altered diffusion parameters of cerebellar peduncles and linked imbalance in neurodegeneration. Notably, however, the studies that used these tracts (SCP, MCP, ICP) as ROIs were often the ones that reported them to be linked with balance (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010; Drijkoningen et al., 2015a; Drijkoningen et al., 2015b), which is important to consider in terms of analysis to avoid selection bias in reported findings.
4.5.3 Other Inconsistent Reported Findings
Most of the studies included in this systematic review reported brain regions or white-matter tracts which were not reported in any of the other MRI studies. These included medial lemniscus (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010), corticospinal tract (Caeyenberghs et al., 2011), superior parietal gyrus (Caeyenberghs et al., 2012), left putamen (Caeyenberghs et al., 2015), a pre-frontal functional network (Diez et al., 2017), pons and medulla (Drijkoningen et al., 2015b), left occipital gyrus (Wang et al., 2019), pontine tegmentum (Delano-Wood et al., 2015), and ALIC (Caeyenberghs et al., 2010; Calzolari et al., 2021).
Calzolari et al., 2021 reported four comparisons in which the diffusion parameters of ALIC were reportedly linked to imbalance. These included: i) two direct comparisons of TBI patients with healthy controls (one with FA and one with MD); and ii) two correlations of all participants’ (TBI and controls combined) diffusion parameters with balance measure (one with FA and one with MD). In contrast, when diffusion imaging parameters of TBI patients with impaired balance were compared with TBI patients without impaired balance, FA and MD values of ALIC were not different between these two groups. Thus, it seems that ALIC is damaged in TBI (as it has attenuated parameters compared to controls) but might not link with imbalance.
Calzolari et al., 2021 also compared TBI patients with and without balance impairment, which is more likely to control for TBI specific findings. This showed that TBI patients with impaired balance had low FA and high MD values in genu of corpus callosum and left anterior corona radiata. Left external capsule also showed increased MD values in TBI patients with impaired balance. Damage to corpus callosum (CC) could have a major role in causing postural imbalance in TBI since TBI often suffer damage to CC (Ghajari et al., 2017; Jolly et al., 2020). FA values in genu of CC are previously reported to be linked with deficits of dynamic balance in older adults (Rosario et al., 2016). Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that vestibular pathways are connected bihemispherically via the corpus callosum (Kirsch et al., 2016). Given the bihemispheric involvement in balance control, few would argue against the involvement of the CC in human postural control and its damage in TBI as a key mediator of imbalance after TBI.
The superior parietal gyrus, shown to link with imbalance in Caeyenberghs et al., 2012, reportedly activates in response to vestibular stimulation (Della-Justina et al., 2014; Helmchen et al., 2020), and the degree of its functional activation also links with the postural stability (Mitsutake et al., 2020). Similarly, inhibition of parietal regions using non-invasive brain stimulation (tDCS) has also been shown to modulate postural balance in healthy participants (Oka et al., 2022). Note however that inferior parietal activation is more commonly reported in response to vestibular stimulation (Bense et al., 2001; Eickhoff et al., 2006; Helmchen et al., 2020) and also shows structural changes in response to balance training (see review – Surgent et al., 2019).
Wang et al., 2019 reported a link between poor balance and relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) in the left occipital gyrus in TBI. A similar finding, however in middle occipital gyrus, was also found by Bittecourt et al., 2022. Previous studies have reported the link between balance training and structural changes in the left inferior occipital gyrus in healthy (Taubert et al., 2010) and left middle occipital gyrus in patients (Villiger et al., 2015). Superior (Helmchen et al., 2020), middle (Aedo-Jury et al., 2020; Della-Justina et al., 2014; Helmchen et al., 2020), and inferior occipital gyri (Bense et al., 2001; Della-Justina et al., 2014; Helmchen et al., 2020) are also shown to have increased activation in response to vestibular stimulation. Whether these regions which appear to mediate multisensory integration, have a specific role in postural balance is unclear.
Caeyenberghs et al., 2015 reported a link between imbalance and the left putamen and Diez et al., 2017 reported involvement of a frontal functional network (which also included caudate). Activation of striatal regions (caudate and putamen) (Helmchen et al., 2020; Mitsutake et al., 2020) and the frontal regions (Bense et al., 2001; Della-Justina et al., 2014; Helmchen et al., 2020; Lobel et al., 1998) is also commonly reported in vestibular stimulation studies. A systematic review in healthy individuals during a postural task (Dijkstra et al., 2020) reported that one study showed functional activation in putamen (Jahn et al., 2004) and two in caudate (Karim et al., 2014; Zwergal et al., 2012) in response to mental imagery or observation of a postural task. Moreover, nearly all studies report activation in frontal regions (Dijkstra et al., 2020) during mental imagery of a postural task. One PET study has reported activation of bilateral middle frontal gyri during standing with eyes closed while scanning, suggesting possible causal role of frontal gyri in control of postural balance (Ouchi et al., 1999).
We do not discuss in detail the medial lemniscus, corticospinal tract, and midbrain regions (medulla and pons). All of these subcortical regions are important in motor function and postural balance due to their involvement in bottom-up proprioceptive signals, however, only the studies using these tracts as ROIs found their link with postural imbalance in TBI. Nonetheless, the pedunculopontine nucleus (PPN) – a region located in upper pons, is a highly vestibular responsive cholinergic nucleus (Aravamuthan & Angelaki, 2012) and could have causal role in human postural control (Yousif et al., 2016). There is evidence suggesting that cholinergic PPN neuronal loss (not dopaminergic) is linked to postural imbalance in Parkinson’s Disease (PD) (Bohnen et al., 2012; Bohnen & Albin, 2009). A recent study in a large sample of PD patients showed a link between thalamic cholinergic loss and postural imbalance but not with cortical cholinergic or dopaminergic denervation (Bohnen et al., 2022).
Notably, none of the studies except Bittencourt et al., 2022 found involvement of temporal regions. The temporal gyri are known to be of considerable importance in processing vestibular sensations as indicated by an invasive electrical stimulation study (Kahane et al., 2003). The lack of focal finding in temporal gyrus in most studies could reflect the notion of network disruption to be the cause of most vestibular problems as shown previously (Calzolari et al., 2021; Hadi et al., 2022).
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
Our findings indicate that the mechanisms underlying postural deficits in TBI are poorly understood. Given the multiple levels of vulnerability ranging from the vestibular organ, the nerve, brainstem and cerebellar circuits, thalamic relay areas, and cortical processing pathways, it is likely that traumatic brain injury could result in imbalance due to multiple reasons. This could also explain the inconsistency in findings of current literature. Thus, apart from removing peripheral diagnoses (vestibular organ & nerve related problems) from the equation, studies should account for multiple models of postural control to control for biased reporting or inconsistent findings. Individual studies looking at subcortical function separate from cortical function may also produce findings biased towards certain regions thus a whole-brain analysis approach is recommended.
Lack of studies in general population with TBI, and lack of studies evaluating postural imbalance in TBI is surprising, considering that 50 million people worldwide have a TBI in a year (Maas et al., 2017, 2022). Vestibular dysfunction in TBI can go unnoticed since patients’ subjective reports of their balance do not correlate well with clinical and objective assessment of balance (Marcus et al., 2019; Sargeant et al., 2018; Wood et al., 2022). Thus, assessment of vestibular dysfunction is key in TBI patients, which could be a marker of prognosis post TBI (Schlosser et al., 2009).
Finally, none of the studies included in this review accounted for the lesions and it is possible that the lesions and their spatial location, might explain the findings in the studies and could also be a predictor of imbalance. In contrast, the extensive involvement of cortical regions mediating postural control indicates significant neural redundancy hence, it seems that critical nodes whose damage would compromise balance control is less likely than the impact of network disconnection. It is also important to state that sample size in the studies were low, which could be one of the reasons of lack of replicable findings across studies with independent samples.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study is summarized in the form of tabulated information and is provided along with the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Funding
The Medical Research Council (MRC), The Jon Moulton Charity Trust, The US Department of Defense - Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP).
Author Contributions
Zaeem Hadi: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - Original Draft. Mohammad Mahmud: Methodology, Writing – review and editing. Barry M Seemungal: Project administration, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing.
Appendix
Search terms for Web of Sciences (Core collection)
((balance) OR (imbalance)) OR (posture*)
((traumatic brain injury) OR (TBI)) OR (Concussion*)
((((((((((((((((((brain imaging) OR (neuroimaging)) OR (diffusion tensor imaging)) OR (DTI)) OR (voxel based morphometry)) OR (VBM)) OR (functional imaging)) OR (structural imaging)) OR (magnetic resonance imaging)) OR (fMRI)) OR (magnetic resonance spectroscopy)) OR (single photon emission computed tomography)) OR (Positron emission tomography)) OR (Electroencephalography)) OR (EEG)) OR (Magnetoencephalography)) OR (Near-Infrared Spectroscopy)) OR (Evoked Potentials)) OR (Tomography, X-Ray Computed)
NIRS OR PET OR MRS OR SPECT OR CT OR fNIRS
#3 OR #4
#1 AND #2 AND #5
Search terms for Web of Sciences (All databases: BIOSIS Citation Index, CABI: CAB Abstracts, KCI-Korean Journal Database, MEDLINE, Preprint Citation Index, SciELO Citation Index)
((balance) OR (imbalance)) OR (posture*)
((traumatic brain injury) OR (TBI)) OR (Concussion*)
((((((((((((((((((brain imaging) OR (neuroimaging)) OR (diffusion tensor imaging)) OR (DTI)) OR (voxel based morphometry)) OR (VBM)) OR (functional imaging)) OR (structural imaging)) OR (magnetic resonance imaging)) OR (fMRI)) OR (magnetic resonance spectroscopy)) OR (single photon emission computed tomography)) OR (Positron emission tomography)) OR (Electroencephalography)) OR (EEG)) OR (Magnetoencephalography)) OR (Near-Infrared Spectroscopy)) OR (Evoked Potentials)) OR (Tomography, X-Ray Computed)
NIRS OR PET OR MRS OR SPECT OR CT OR fNIRS
#3 OR #4
#1 AND #2 AND #5
Search terms for Scopus
((((balance) OR (imbalance)) OR (posture*)) AND (((traumatic AND brain AND injury) OR (tbi)) OR (concussion*))) AND (((((((((((((((((((((((((brain AND imaging) OR (neuroimaging)) OR (diffusion AND tensor AND imaging)) OR (dti)) OR (voxel AND based AND morphometry)) OR (vbm)) OR (functional AND imaging)) OR (structural AND imaging)) OR (magnetic AND resonance AND imaging)) OR (fmri)) OR (magnetic AND resonance AND spectroscopy)) OR (single AND photon AND emission AND computed AND tomography)) OR (positron AND emission AND tomography)) OR (electroencephalography)) OR (eeg)) OR (magnetoencephalography)) OR (near-infrared AND spectroscopy)) OR (evoked AND potentials)) OR (tomography, AND x-ray AND computed)) OR (pet)) OR (mrs)) OR (nirs)) OR (spect)) OR (ct)) OR (fnirs))
Search terms for Pubmed
((((balance) OR (imbalance)) OR (posture*)) AND (((traumatic brain injury) OR (TBI)) OR (Concussion*))) AND ((NIRS OR PET OR MRS OR SPECT OR CT OR fNIRS) OR (((((((((((((((((((brain imaging) OR (neuroimaging)) OR (diffusion tensor imaging)) OR (DTI)) OR (voxel based morphometry)) OR (VBM)) OR (functional imaging)) OR (structural imaging)) OR (magnetic resonance imaging)) OR (fMRI)) OR (magnetic resonance spectroscopy)) OR (single photon emission computed tomography)) OR (Positron emission tomography)) OR (Electroencephalography)) OR (EEG)) OR (Magnetoencephalography)) OR (Near-Infrared Spectroscopy)) OR (Evoked Potentials)) OR (Tomography, X-Ray Computed)))
References
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- 4.↵
- 5.↵
- 6.↵
- 7.↵
- 8.↵
- 9.↵
- 10.↵
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.↵
- 14.↵
- 15.↵
- 16.↵
- 17.↵
- 18.↵
- 19.↵
- 20.↵
- 21.↵
- 22.↵
- 23.↵
- 24.↵
- 25.↵
- 26.↵
- 27.↵
- 28.↵
- 29.↵
- 30.↵
- 31.↵
- 32.↵
- 33.↵
- 34.↵
- 35.↵
- 36.↵
- 37.↵
- 38.↵
- 39.↵
- 40.↵
- 41.↵
- 42.↵
- 43.↵
- 44.↵
- 45.↵
- 46.↵
- 47.↵
- 48.↵
- 49.↵
- 50.↵
- 51.↵
- 52.↵
- 53.↵
- 54.↵
- 55.↵
- 56.↵
- 57.↵
- 58.↵
- 59.↵
- 60.↵
- 61.↵
- 62.↵
- 63.↵
- 64.↵
- 65.↵
- 66.↵
- 67.↵
- 68.↵
- 69.↵
- 70.↵
- 71.↵
- 72.↵
- 73.↵
- 74.↵
- 75.↵
- 76.↵
- 77.↵
- 78.↵
- 79.↵
- 80.↵
- 81.↵
- 82.↵
- 83.↵
- 84.↵
- 85.↵
- 86.↵
- 87.↵
- 88.↵
- 89.↵
- 90.↵
- 91.↵
- 92.↵
- 93.↵
- 94.↵
- 95.↵
- 96.↵
- 97.↵
- 98.↵
- 99.↵
- 100.↵
- 101.↵
- 102.↵
- 103.↵
- 104.↵
- 105.↵
- 106.↵
- 107.↵
- 108.↵
- 109.↵
- 110.↵
- 111.↵
- 112.↵
- 113.↵
- 114.↵
- 115.↵
- 116.↵
- 117.↵
- 118.↵
- 119.↵
- 120.↵
