Liang S, Wang W, Yu F, Pan L, Xu D, Hu R, Tian S, Xiang J, Zhu Y. Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation combined with transcranial magnetic stimulation in rehabilitation of upper extremity hemiparesis following stroke: a pilot study.
J Rehabil Med 2024;
56:jrm19449. [PMID:
38298134 PMCID:
PMC10847975 DOI:
10.2340/jrm.v56.19449]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2023] [Accepted: 12/20/2023] [Indexed: 02/02/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effect of combined repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation on upper extremity function in subacute stroke patients.
DESIGN
Pilot study.
SUBJECTS
Subacute stroke patients.
METHODS
Included patients were randomized into 3 groups: a central-associated peripheral stimulation (CPS) group, a central-stimulation-only (CS) group, and a control (C) group. The CPS group underwent a new paired associative stimulation (combined repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation), the CS group underwent repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and the C group underwent sham stimulation. All 3 groups received physiotherapy after the stimulation or sham stimulation. The treatment comprised 20 once-daily sessions. Primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score, and secondary outcomes were the Barthel Index and Comprehensive Functional Assessment scores, and neurophysiological assessments were mainly short-interval intracortical inhibition. A 3-group (CPS, CS, C) × 2-time (before, after intervention) repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether changes in scores were significantly different between the 3 groups.
RESULTS
A total of 45 patients were included in the analysis. Between-group comparisons on the FMA-UE demonstrated a significant improvement (group × time interaction, F2,42 = 4.86; p = 0.013; C vs CS, p = 0.020; C vs CPS, p = 0.016; CS vs CPS, p = 0.955). Correlation analysis did not find any substantial positive correlation between changes in FMA-UE and short-interval intracortical inhibition variables (C, r = -0.196, p = 0.483; CS, r = -0.169, p = 0.546; CPS, r = -0.424, p = 0.115).
CONCLUSION
This study suggests that the real-stimulus (CS and CPS) groups had better outcomes than the control (C) group. In addition, the CPS group showed a better trend in clinical and neurophysiological assessments compared with the CS group.
Collapse