Peripheral repetitive magnetic stimulation induces intracortical inhibition in healthy subjects

Cortical Mechanisms Underlying Effects of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation on Dynamic and Static Postural Control in Patients with Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) often experience impaired postural control, contributing to pain recurrence. Although repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) combined with core muscle training (CMT) could improve postural control, its neural mechanism remains unclear. This study aims to investigate the postural control-related cortical mechanism of the effect of rPMS on patients with CNLBP.

METHODS

This unicentric, prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was conducted in a public hospital from May to December 2023. A total of 40 patients (27 females and 13 males, mean age 29.38 ± 7.72) with CNLBP were randomly assigned to either the rPMS group (real rPMS with CMT) or the sham-rPMS group (sham-rPMS with CMT) for 12 sessions over 4 weeks. The rPMS was applied to the lumbar paravertebral multifidus muscle on the painful side. Pain and disability were quantified using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) pre- and post-intervention. Furthermore, the sway area and velocity of the center of pressure (COP) were measured using a force platform. The cortical activities in 6 regions of interest during 4 tasks (standing with eyes open/closed on a stable/unstable plane) were recorded by functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) pre- and post-intervention. The repeated measure ANOVA was applied for statistical analysis. Spearman's correlation was used to determine the relationships between variables.

RESULTS

After the intervention, the rPMS group showed decreased pain intensity (p = 0.001) and sway area (unstable eyes-closed task) (p = 0.046) compared to the sham-rPMS group. Additionally, the rPMS group exhibited increased activation in left primary motor cortex (M1) (p = 0.042) and reduced in left supplementary motor area (SMA) (p = 0.045), whereas the sham-rPMS group showed no significant changes. The increased activation of left M1 was negatively correlated to the reduction of pain intensity (r = - 0.537, p = 0.018) and sway area (r = - 0.500, p = 0.029) under the static balancing task. Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between sway velocity and VAS (r = 0.451, p = 0.046) post-rPMS intervention.

CONCLUSION

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation combined with core muscle training demonstrated better analgesic effects and postural control improvements, compared to sham-stimulation. This may be attributed to the increased activation of the left primary motor cortex.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (ChiCTR2300070943).

Synergistic efficacy of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation on central intermittent theta burst stimulation for upper limb function in patients with stroke: a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive techniques such as central intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) have shown promise in improving motor function for patients with stroke. However, the combined efficacy of rPMS and central iTBS has not been extensively studied. This randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the synergistic effects of rPMS and central iTBS in patients with stroke.

METHOD

In this study, 28 stroke patients were randomly allocated to receive either 1200 pulses of real or sham rPMS on the radial nerve of the affected limb, followed by 1200 pulses of central iTBS on the ipsilesional hemisphere. The patients received the intervention for 10 sessions over two weeks. The primary outcome measures were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) and the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Secondary outcomes for activities and participation included the Functional Independence Measure-Selfcare (FIM-Selfcare) and the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS). The outcome measures were assessed before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvement in FMA-UE and FIM-Selfcare after the intervention (p < 0.05). Only the rPMS + iTBS group had significant improvement in ARAT-Grasp and SIS-Strength and activity of daily living (p < 0.05). However, the change scores in all outcome measures did not differ between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the study's findings suggest that rPMS may have a synergistic effect on central iTBS to improve grasp function and participation. In conclusion, these findings highlight the potential of rPMS as an adjuvant therapy for central iTBS in stroke rehabilitation. Further large-scale studies are needed to fully explore the synergistic effects of rPMS on central iTBS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov ID No.NCT04265365, retrospectively registered, on February 11, 2020.

Repetitive peripheral sensory stimulation for motor recovery after stroke: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Enhancing afferent information from the paretic limb can improve post-stroke motor recovery. However, uncertainties exist regarding varied sensory peripheral neuromodulation protocols and their specific impacts. This study outlines the use of repetitive peripheral sensory stimulation (RPSS) and repetitive magnetic stimulation (rPMS) in individuals with stroke.

METHODS

This scoping review was conducted according to the JBI Evidence Synthesis guidelines. We searched studies published until June 2023 on several databases using a three-step analysis and categorization of the studies: pre-analysis, exploration of the material, and data processing.

RESULTS

We identified 916 studies, 52 of which were included (N = 1,125 participants). Approximately 53.84% of the participants were in the chronic phase, displaying moderate-to-severe functional impairment. Thirty-two studies used RPSS often combining it with task-oriented training, while 20 used rPMS as a standalone intervention. The RPSS primarily targeted the median and ulnar nerves, stimulating for an average of 92.78 min at an intensity that induced paresthesia. RPMS targeted the upper and lower limb paretic muscles, employing a 20 Hz frequency in most studies. The mean stimulation time was 12.74 min, with an intensity of 70% of the maximal stimulator output. Among the 114 variables analyzed in the 52 studies, 88 (77.20%) were in the "s,b" domain, with 26 (22.8%) falling under the "d" domain of the ICF.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Sensory peripheral neuromodulation protocols hold the potential for enhancing post-stroke motor recovery, yet optimal outcomes were obtained when integrated with intensive or task-oriented motor training.

Different Effect Sizes of Motor Skill Training Combined with Repetitive Transcranial versus Trans-Spinal Magnetic Stimulation in Healthy Subjects

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is used to enhance motor training (MT) performance. The use of rTMS is limited under certain conditions, such as after a stroke with severe damage to the corticospinal tract. This raises the question as to whether repetitive trans-spinal magnetic stimulation (rSMS) can also be used to improve MT. A direct comparison of the effect size between rTMS and rSMS on the same MT is still lacking. Before conducting the study in patients, we determined the effect sizes of different stimulation approaches combined with the same motor training in healthy subjects. Two experiments (E1 and E2) with 96 subjects investigated the effect size of combining magnetic stimulation with the same MT. In E1, high-frequency rTMS, rSMS, and spinal sham stimulation (sham-spinal) were applied once in combination with MT, while one group only received the same MT (without stimulation). In E2, rTMS, rSMS, and sham-spinal were applied in combination with MT over several days. In all subjects, motor tests and motor-evoked potentials were evaluated before and after the intervention period. rTMS had the greatest effect on MT, followed by rSMS and then sham-spinal. Daily stimulation resulted in additional training gains. This study suggests that rSMS increases excitability and also enhances MT performance. This current study provides a basis for further research to discover whether patients who cannot be treated effectively with rTMS would benefit from rSMS.

Effect of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation on Patients With Low Back Pain: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) on pain intensity, functional mobility, and kinesiophobia in individuals with low back pain (LBP).

DATA SOURCES

The PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from inception until November 25, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible randomized controlled trials contained information on the population (LBP), intervention (rPMS), and outcomes (pain intensity, functional mobility, and kinesiophobia). Participants in the rPMS intervention group were compared with those in sham or other control groups. Two independent researchers searched for, screened, and qualified the articles.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent researchers extracted key information from each eligible study. The authors' names, year of publication, setting, total sample size, rPMS parameters, baseline/mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were extracted using a standardized form, and the methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database score and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 733 studies identified, 6 randomized controlled trials (n = 139) were included for meta-analysis. Compared with sham rPMS or other therapy, rPMS showed significant efficacy in reducing pain intensity (visual analog scale: MD, -1.89; 95% CI, -3.32 to -0.47; P<.05; very low-quality evidence). Significant efficacy was also found in terms of functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index: MD, -8.39; 95% CI, -13.65 to -3.12; P<.001; low-quality evidence). However, there was no statistically significant between-group difference on the Tampa scale of kinesiophobia (MD, -1.81; 95% CI, -7.60 to 3.98; P>.05; very low-quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found very low- to low-quality evidence that rPMS can be used to reduce pain intensity and improve functional disability in individuals with LBP. However, no significant effect of rPMS on kinesiophobia was found.

Top-down and bottom-up stimulation techniques combined with action observation treatment in stroke rehabilitation: a perspective

Stroke is a central nervous system disease that causes structural lesions and functional impairments of the brain, resulting in varying types, and degrees of dysfunction. The bimodal balance-recovery model (interhemispheric competition model and vicariation model) has been proposed as the mechanism of functional recovery after a stroke. We analyzed how combinations of motor observation treatment approaches, transcranial electrical (TES) or magnetic (TMS) stimulation and peripheral electrical (PES) or magnetic (PMS) stimulation techniques can be taken as accessorial physical therapy methods on symptom reduction of stroke patients. We suggest that top-down and bottom-up stimulation techniques combined with action observation treatment synergistically might develop into valuable physical therapy strategies in neurorehabilitation after stroke. We explored how TES or TMS intervention over the contralesional hemisphere or the lesioned hemisphere combined with PES or PMS of the paretic limbs during motor observation followed by action execution have super-additive effects to potentiate the effect of conventional treatment in stroke patients. The proposed paradigm could be an innovative and adjunctive approach to potentiate the effect of conventional rehabilitation treatment, especially for those patients with severe motor deficits.

Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation Combined with Motor Imagery Changes Resting-State EEG Activity: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation is a novel non-invasive technique for applying repetitive magnetic stimulation to the peripheral nerves and muscles. Contrarily, a person imagines that he/she is exercising during motor imagery. Resting-state electroencephalography can evaluate the ability of motor imagery; however, the effects of motor imagery and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation on resting-state electroencephalography are unknown. We examined the effects of motor imagery and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation on the vividness of motor imagery and resting-state electroencephalography. The participants were divided into a motor imagery group and motor imagery and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation group. They performed 60 motor imagery tasks involving wrist dorsiflexion movement. In the motor imagery and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation group, we applied repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation to the extensor carpi radialis longus muscle during motor imagery. We measured the vividness of motor imagery and resting-state electroencephalography before and after the task. Both groups displayed a significant increase in the vividness of motor imagery. The motor imagery and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation group exhibited increased β activity in the anterior cingulate cortex by source localization for electroencephalography. Hence, combined motor imagery and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation changes the resting-state electroencephalography activity and may promote motor imagery.

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for impairment and disability in people after stroke

BACKGROUND

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a non-invasive treatment method that can penetrate to deeper structures with painless stimulation to improve motor function in people with physical impairment due to brain or nerve disorders. rPMS for people after stroke has proved to be a feasible approach to improving activities of daily living and functional ability. However, the effectiveness and safety of this intervention for people after stroke remain uncertain. This is an update of the review published in 2019.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of rPMS for improving activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); PsycINFO; the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED); OTseeker: Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence; the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro); Ichushi-Web; and six ongoing trial registries on 5 October 2021. We screened reference lists and contacted experts in the field. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to assess the therapeutic effect of rPMS for people after stroke. The following comparisons were eligible for inclusion: 1) active rPMS only compared with 'sham' rPMS (a very weak form of stimulation or a sound only); 2) active rPMS only compared with no intervention; 3) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with sham rPMS plus rehabilitation; and 4) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with rehabilitation only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. The same review authors assessed methods and risk of bias, undertook data extraction, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We contacted trial authors to request unpublished information if necessary. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials (three parallel-group RCTs and one cross-over trial) involving a total of 139 participants. This result was unchanged from the review published in 2019. Blinding of participants and physicians was well reported in three trials, with no information on whether personnel were blinded in one trial. We judged the overall risk of bias across trials as low. Only two trials (with 63 and 18 participants, respectively) provided sufficient information to be included in the meta-analysis. We found no clear effect of rPMS on activities of daily living at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) -3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.35 to 10.35; P = 0.66; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD -2.00, 95% CI -14.86 to 10.86; P = 0.76; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham rPMS plus rehabilitation. We found no statistical difference in improvement of upper limb function at the end of treatment (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.91 to 8.91; P = 0.57; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD 4.00, 95% CI -2.92 to 10.92; P = 0.26; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham rPMS plus rehabilitation. We observed a decrease in spasticity of the elbow at the end of follow-up (MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.07; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham rPMS plus rehabilitation. In terms of muscle strength, rPMS treatment was not associated with improved muscle strength of the ankle dorsiflexors at the end of treatment (MD 3.00, 95% CI -2.44 to 8.44; P = 0.28; 1 trial; 18 participants; low-certainty evidence) when compared with sham rPMS. No studies provided information on lower limb function or adverse events, including death. Based on the GRADE approach, we judged the certainty of evidence related to the primary outcome as low, owing to the small sample size of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to permit the drawing of any conclusions about routine use of rPMS for people after stroke. Additional trials with large sample sizes are needed to provide robust evidence for rPMS after stroke.

Effect of High-Frequency Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation on Motor Performance in Intracerebral Haemorrhage: A Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial was to explore the efficacy and safety of HF-rPMS synchronosly applied to the axilla (stimulating the brachial plexus) and the popliteal fossa (stimulating the tibial nerve and common peroneal nerve) in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage on rehabilitation of motor functions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with intracerebral haemorrhage in the early period were recruited and randomly assigned to the HF-rPMS group or the sham rPMS group. The two synchrous coils of magnetic stimulation in the two groups were respectively applied to the axilla and the popliteal fossa of the affected limb. But the sham group received the ineffective rPMS and only heard the sound as occured in the HF-rPMS group. Clinical outcomes included the change of Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) scale and Medical Research Council (MRC) scale before and after HF-rPMS.

RESULTS

Of 76 eligible patients, 30 were included and only 26 patients completed this study. The diferences on the improvement of the upper extremity FMA (P=0.012), the lower extremity FMA (P=0.001), the proximal MRC of upper extremity (p = 0.043), the proximal MRC of lower extremity (p= 0.004) and the distal MRC scores of lower extremity (p= 0.008) between the the HF-rPMS group and sham rPMS group were statistically signifcant.

CONCLUSIONS

Synchrous HF-rPMS intervention at the axilla and the popliteal fossa significantly improved motor function and proximal muscle strength of upper and lower limb of patients in acute or early subacute phase of intracerebral hemorrhage.

Effects of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation through Hand Splint Materials on Induced Movement and Corticospinal Excitability in Healthy Participants

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique. Magnetic fields induced by rPMS pass through almost all materials, and it has clinical applications for neurorehabilitation. However, the effects of rPMS through clothing and orthosis on induced movement and corticospinal excitability remain unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether rPMS induces movement and enhances corticospinal excitability through hand splint materials. rPMS was applied directly to the skin (L0) and through one (L1) or two (L2) layers of splint material in 14 healthy participants at 25-Hz, 2-s train per 6 s for a total of 20 min. rPMS was delivered to the forearm with the stimulus intensity set to 1.5-times the train intensity-induced muscle contractions under the L0 condition. We recorded induced wrist movements during rPMS and motor-evoked potentials of the extensor carpi radialis pre- and post-application. The results showed that rPMS induced wrist movements in L0 and L1, and it facilitated corticospinal excitability in L0 but not in L1 and L2. This suggests that rPMS can make electromagnetic induction on periphery even when applied over clothing and orthosis and demonstrates the potential clinical applications of this technique for neurorehabilitation.

Time course changes in corticospinal excitability during repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation combined with motor imagery

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) induces proprioceptive afferents and facilitates corticospinal excitability. Short-term sessions of rPMS combined with motor imagery (MI) enhance corticospinal excitability more than rPMS alone. However, it is not clear how long the intervention of rPMS combined with MI would be needed to facilitate corticospinal excitability. Therefore, we investigated the time course change in corticospinal excitability during the combination of rPMS and MI. Thirteen healthy volunteers participated in a 20-min intervention under the following three experimental conditions on different days: rPMS, MI, and rPMS combined with MI (rPMS + MI). In the rPMS and rPMS + MI, the participants were delivered rPMS, which was 25 Hz, 2 s/train at 1.5 × of the train intensity induced muscle contractions, through the wrist extensor muscles. In the MI and rPMS + MI, the participants repeatedly imagined wrist movements for 2 s. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded from the extensor carpi radialis (ECR) and flexor carpi radialis (FCR) muscles every 5 min for each condition. The MEP amplitudes of the ECR after > 10 min of intermittent rPMS combined with MI were greater than baseline. The MEP amplitude of the ECR in rPMS + MI was greater than that in rPMS condition after 20 min of intervention. The present results suggest that over 10 min of intermittent rPMS combined with MI facilitates corticospinal excitability, and that the effect of rPMS combined with MI on corticospinal excitability might be greater than that of rPMS alone.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. A Comprehensive Review on Neuroplastic Changes Supporting the Use of Non-invasive Neurostimulation in Clinical Settings

Background: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a rare debilitating disorder characterized by severe pain affecting one or more limbs. CRPS presents a complex multifactorial physiopathology. The peripheral and sensorimotor abnormalities reflect maladaptive changes of the central nervous system. These changes of volume, connectivity, activation, metabolism, etc., could be the keys to understand chronicization, refractoriness to conventional treatment, and developing more efficient treatments. Objective: This review discusses the use of non-pharmacological, non-invasive neurostimulation techniques in CRPS, with regard to the CRPS physiopathology, brain changes underlying chronicization, conventional approaches to treat CRPS, current evidence, and mechanisms of action of peripheral and brain stimulation. Conclusion: Future work is warranted to foster the evidence of the efficacy of non-invasive neurostimulation in CRPS. It seems that the approach has to be individualized owing to the integrity of the brain and corticospinal function. Non-invasive neurostimulation of the brain or of nerve/muscles/spinal roots, alone or in combination with conventional therapy, represents a fertile ground to develop more efficient approaches for pain management in CRPS.

Anatomo-Functional Origins of the Cortical Silent Period: Spotlight on the Basal Ganglia

The so-called cortical silent period (CSP) refers to the temporary interruption of electromyographic signal from a muscle following a motor-evoked potential (MEP) triggered by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1). The neurophysiological origins of the CSP are debated. Previous evidence suggests that both spinal and cortical mechanisms may account for the duration of the CSP. However, contextual factors such as cortical fatigue, experimental procedures, attentional load, as well as neuropathology can also influence the CSP duration. The present paper summarizes the most relevant evidence on the mechanisms underlying the duration of the CSP, with a particular focus on the central role of the basal ganglia in the "direct" (excitatory), "indirect" (inhibitory), and "hyperdirect" cortico-subcortical pathways to manage cortical motor inhibition. We propose new methods of interpretation of the CSP related, at least partially, to the inhibitory hyperdirect and indirect pathways in the basal ganglia. This view may help to explain the respective shortening and lengthening of the CSP in various neurological disorders. Shedding light on the complexity of the CSP's origins, the present review aims at constituting a reference for future work in fundamental research, technological development, and clinical settings.

Effect of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation combined with motor imagery on the corticospinal excitability of antagonist muscles

OBJECTIVE

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) combined with motor imagery facilitates the corticospinal excitability of the agonist muscles. However, the effects of rPMS combined with motor imagery on the corticospinal excitability of the antagonist muscles are unclear. This is an important aspect for applying rPMS in neurorehabilitation for sensorimotor dysfunction. Therefore, we investigated the real-time changes of corticospinal excitability of antagonist muscles during rPMS combined with motor imagery.

METHODS

Fourteen healthy volunteers underwent four different experimental conditions: rest, rPMS, motor imagery, and rPMS combined with motor imagery (rPMS + motor imagery). In the rPMS and rPMS + motor imagery conditions, rPMS (25 Hz, 1600 ms/train, 1.5× of the motor threshold) was delivered to the dorsal side of the forearm. In motor imagery and rPMS + motor imagery, the participant imagined wrist extension movements. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered to record motor-evoked potentials of the antagonist muscle during experimental interventions.

RESULTS

The motor-evoked potential (normalized by rest condition) values indicated no difference between rPMS, motor imagery, and rPMS + motor imagery.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that rPMS combined with motor imagery has no effect on the corticospinal excitability of the antagonist muscles and highlight the importance of investigating the effects of rPMS combined with motor imagery at the spinal level.

The bottom-up approach: Non-invasive peripheral neurostimulation methods to treat migraine: A scoping review from the child neurologist's perspective

Migraine is a common and invalidating disorder worldwide. Patients of all ages experience the disorder as very impairing regarding their personal and occupational lives. The current approach in migraine therapy is multimodal including lifestyle management, psychoeducation and, if available, psychotherapeutic interventions, and pharmacotherapy. The lack of non-pharmacological and non-invasive treatment options call for new and innovative therapeutic approaches. Peripheral neurostimulation is a relatively new method in migraine management offering a painless and non-pharmacological way of targeting specific mechanisms involved in migraine. This review summarizes 15 recent randomized clinical trials to provide an overview of non-invasive peripheral neurostimulation methods currently available for the treatment of migraine. Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the different interventions and their feasibility in the pediatric setting are evaluated. Vagal nerve stimulation (VNS), remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) and supraorbital nerve stimulation (SNS) are considered effective in treating acute migraine attacks, the latter being more pronounced in migraine without aura. Regarding migraine prevention, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) and supraorbital nerve stimulation (SNS) demonstrated efficacy, whereas repetitive neuromuscular magnetic stimulation (rNMS) may represent a further effective option in episodic migraine. REN and rNMS were found to be well-accepted with fewer patients discontinuing treatment than those receiving direct cranial nerve stimulation. In summary, peripheral neurostimulation represents a promising option to complement the multimodal therapy concept for pediatric migraine. In particular, rNMS opens a new field for research and treatment fitting the requirements of "non-invasiveness" for children. Given the reported efficacy, safety, and feasibility, the therapy decision should be made on an individual level.

Modulation of the cutaneous and cortical silent period in response to local menthol application

In this study, we investigated the effects of menthol application on the cortical and cutaneous silent period (CSP/cutSP). Both the cutSP and CSP were assessed while participants (n = 11, young adults) exerted a light contraction with the right thumb. In the 1st block of trials, SPs were measured after the application of a Neutral gel (Aloe Vera) to the dorsal aspect of the hand. In the 2nd block, the same measures were repeated following a Menthol gel (4%) application. Subjective ratings of cooling sensations were obtained for each block. The Neutral gel was consistently perceived as slightly cool by participants, wheres the Menthol gel elicited sensations from cool to very cold. Paired t-tests showed no difference in the cutSP duration between the two conditions, whereas a significant increase in the CSP was detected with the Menthol condition. No correlation was found between changes in the CSP and those of the cutSP. These results highlight the difference between the cutSP and the CSP, as inhibitory phenomena, and point to a cortical contribution to the soothing effects associated with topical menthol applications.

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation combined with intensive physical therapy for gait disturbance after hemorrhagic stroke: an open-label case series

In this pilot study, we aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of a 15-day protocol consisting of in-hospital repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) combined with intensive physical therapy for the recovery of the gait disturbance in chronic stroke patients with lower limb hemiparesis. Seven hemorrhagic stroke patients with lower limb hemiparesis and gait disturbance (age: 50-78; time from onset of stroke: 7-107 months) were enrolled. rPMS was applied to the muscles of the paretic lower limb with a parabolic coil. A train of stimuli at a frequency of 20 Hz was applied for 3 s followed by a 27-s rest interval. Therapy with rPMS was performed with eighty such trains of stimuli (total 4800 pulses). Following rPMS therapy, 120 min of physical therapy was administrated daily. Each patient received this combination treatment over fifteen consecutive days, with the walking function of all participants assessed before and after the intervention. The proposed treatment protocol resulted in significant improvements in the walking speed, ambulation ability, and balance ability, but showed no significant effects on the endurance capacity, step length, and spasticity. No rPMS-related side effects were noted. Our protocol consisting of rPMS and intensive physical therapy appears well tolerated and feasible for therapy in hemorrhagic stroke patients with gait disturbance. Further large-scale studies are required to confirm its efficacy.

Dose-response of rPMS for upper Limb hemiparesis after stroke

INTRODUCTION

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) therapy is an innovative and minimally invasive neurorehabilitative technique and has been shown to facilitate neural plasticity. However, there is at present no research that clarifies the dose-response of rPMS therapy on the recovery of upper limb hemiparesis after stroke. This trial aims to clarify the dose-response of rPMS therapy combined with intensive occupational therapy (OT) for chronic stroke patients with moderate to severe upper limb hemiparesis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicenter, prospective, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled study with 3 parallel groups will be conducted from January 20, 2020 to September 30, 2022. Fifty patients will be randomly assigned in a ratio of 1:2:2 to the control group, the group receiving daily 2400 pulses of rPMS, or the group receiving daily 4800 pulses of rPMS, respectively. From the day after admission (Day 1), rPMS therapy and intensive OT will be initiated. The primary outcome is the change in the motor function of the affected upper extremity (Fugl-Meyer Assessment) between the time of admission (Day 0) and the day after 2 weeks of treatment (Day 14). Secondary outcomes will include the changes in spasticity, active range of motion, motor evoked potential, and activity of daily living.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Jikei University Certified Review Board for all institutions (reference number: JKI19-020). Results of the primary and secondary outcomes will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international congresses. The results will also be disseminated to patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCTs032190191.

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for impairment and disability in people after stroke

BACKGROUND

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a non-invasive treatment method that can penetrate to deeper structures with painless stimulation to improve motor function in people with physical impairment due to brain or nerve disorders. rPMS for people after stroke has proved to be a feasible approach to improving activities of daily living and functional ability. However, the effectiveness and safety of this intervention for people after stroke currently remain uncertain. This is an update of the review published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of rPMS in improving activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

On 7 January 2019, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); PsycINFO; the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED); Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence (OTseeker); the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro); ICHUSHI Web; and six ongoing trial registries. We screened reference lists, and we contacted experts in the field. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to assess the therapeutic effect of rPMS for people after stroke. Comparisons eligible for inclusion were (1) active rPMS only compared with 'sham' rPMS (a very weak form of stimulation or a sound only); (2) active rPMS only compared with no intervention; (3) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with sham rPMS plus rehabilitation; and (4) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with rehabilitation only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. The same review authors assessed methods and risk of bias, undertook data extraction, and used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. We contacted trial authors to request unpublished information if necessary. We resolved all disagreements through discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials (three RCTs and one cross-over trial) involving 139 participants. Blinding of participants and physicians was well reported within all trials. We judged the overall risk of bias across trials as low. Only two trials (with 63 and 18 participants, respectively) provided sufficient information to be included in the meta-analysis. We found no clear effect of rPMS on activities of daily living at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) -3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.35 to 10.35; P = 0.66; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-quality evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD -2.00, 95% CI -14.86 to 10.86; P = 0.76; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-quality evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham plus rehabilitation. We found no statistical difference in improvement of upper limb function at the end of treatment (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.91 to 8.91; P = 0.57; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-quality evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD 4.00, 95% CI -2.92 to 10.92; P = 0.26; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-quality evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham plus rehabilitation. We observed a significant decrease in spasticity of the elbow at the end of follow-up (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.03; P = 0.03; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-quality evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham plus rehabilitation. In terms of muscle strength, rPMS treatment was not associated with improved muscle strength of the ankle dorsiflexors at the end of treatment (MD 3.00, 95% CI -2.44 to 8.44; P = 0.28; 1 trial; 18 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with sham rPMS. No studies provided information on lower limb function or adverse events, including death. Based on the GRADE approach, we judged the quality of evidence related to the primary outcome as low, owing to the small sample size of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available trials provided insufficient evidence to permit any conclusions about routine use of rPMS for people after stroke. Additional trials with large sample sizes are needed to provide robust evidence for rPMS after stroke.

Effects of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation on Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study

Objective

To investigate the effects of real repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) treatment compared to sham rPMS treatment on pain reduction and functional recovery of patients with acute low back pain.

Methods

A total of 26 patients with acute low back pain were randomly allocated to the real rPMS group and the sham rPMS group. Subjects were then administered a total of 10 treatment sessions. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was assessed before and after each session. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were employed to assess functional recovery at baseline and after sessions 5 and 10.

Results

Real rPMS treatment showed significant pain reduction immediately after each session. Sustained and significant pain relief was observed after administering only one session in the real rPMS group. Significant functional improvement was observed in the real rPMS group compared to that in the sham rPMS group after sessions 5 and 10 based on ODI and after session 5 based on RMDQ.

Conclusion

Real rPMS treatment has immediate effect on pain reduction and sustained effect on pain relief for patients with acute low back pain compared to sham rPMS.

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke

BACKGROUND

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a form of therapy that creates painless stimulation of deep muscle structures to improve motor function in people with physical impairment from brain or nerve disorders. Use of rPMS for people after stroke has been identified as a feasible approach to improve activities of daily living and functional ability. However, no systematic reviews have assessed the findings of available trials. The effect and safety of this intervention for people after stroke currently remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of rPMS for improving activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (August 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (August 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (November 2016), Embase Ovid (August 2016), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) in Ebsco (August 2016), PsycINFO Ovid (August 2016), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) Ovid (August 2016), Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence (OTseeker) (August 2016), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (October 2016), and ICHUSHI Web (October 2016). We also searched five ongoing trial registries, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to assess the therapeutic effect of rPMS for people after stroke. Comparisons eligible for inclusion were (1) active rPMS only compared with 'sham' rPMS (a very weak form of stimulation or a sound only); (2) active rPMS only compared with no intervention; (3) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with sham rPMS plus rehabilitation; and (4) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with rehabilitation only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. The same review authors assessed methods and risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trial authors to ask for unpublished information if necessary. We resolved all disagreements through discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials (two RCTs and one cross-over trial) involving 121 participants. Blinding of participants and physicians was well reported in all trials, and overall risk of bias was low. We found no clear effect of rPMS on activities of daily living at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) -3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.35 to 10.35; low-quality evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD -2.00, 95% CI -14.86 to 10.86; low-quality evidence). Investigators in one study with 63 participants observed no statistical difference in improvement of upper limb function at the end of treatment (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.91 to 8.91) and at the end of follow-up (MD 4.00, 95% CI -2.92 to 10.92). One trial with 18 participants showed that rPMS treatment was not associated with improved muscle strength at the end of treatment (MD 3.00, 95% CI -2.44 to 8.44). Another study reported a significant decrease in spasticity of the elbow at the end of follow-up (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.03). No studies provided information on lower limb function and death. Based on the GRADE approach, we judged the certainty of evidence related to the primary outcome as low owing to the small sample size of one study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available trials provided inadequate evidence to permit any conclusions about routine use of rPMS for people after stroke. Additional trials with large sample sizes are needed to determine an appropriate rPMS protocol as well as long-term effects. We identified three ongoing trials and will include these trials in the next review update.

Revisiting the Corticomotor Plasticity in Low Back Pain: Challenges and Perspectives

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a recurrent debilitating condition that costs billions to society. Refractoriness to conventional treatment, lack of improvement, and associated movement disorders could be related to the extensive brain plasticity present in this condition, especially in the sensorimotor cortices. This narrative review on corticomotor plasticity in CLBP will try to delineate how interventions such as training and neuromodulation can improve the condition. The review recommends subgrouping classification in CLBP owing to brain plasticity markers with a view of better understanding and treating this complex condition.

Effectiveness of repetitive trancranial or peripheral magnetic stimulation in neuropathic pain

PURPOSE

Maladaptive plasticity in the sensorimotor system, following neurological lesions or diseases, plays a central role in the generation and maintenance of neuropathic pain. Repetitive magnetic stimulation of the central and peripheral nervous system has gained relevance as noninvasive approach for neuromodulation and pain relief. Systematic reviews that evaluate the effectiveness and specificity of different protocols of repetitive magnetic stimulation to control neuropathic pain in clinical populations have the potential to improve the therapeutic applicability of this technique.

METHODS

Studies whose primary goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of repetitive magnetic stimulation for the treatment of various types of neuropathic pain published in PubMed until August 2015 have been included in this systematic review.

RESULTS

A total of 39 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analyzed of which 37 studies investigated pain modulation using repetitive magnetic stimulation over the motor or non-motor cortices and two studies evaluated pain modulation using repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex using high frequency stimulation protocols can effectively reduce neuropathic pain, particularly in individuals with pain related to non-cerebral lesions. The application of multiple sessions can lead to long-lasting pain modulation and cumulative effects. Implications for Rehabilitation Maladaptive plasticity plays a central role in sensitization of nociceptive pathways, generation and maintainance of neuropathic pain; Most neuropathic pain conditions are refractory to pharmacological therapies; Repetitive magnetic stimulation of the central and peripheral nervous system has gained relevance as noninvasive approach for neuromodulation and pain relief.

Influence of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation on neural plasticity in the motor cortex related to swallowing

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation at two different frequencies (20 and 30 Hz) on cortical excitability in motor areas related to swallowing in healthy individuals. The study participants were 10 healthy normal volunteers (two women and eight men, age range 25-36 years). Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation was applied to the submandibular muscle using a parabolic coil at the site where contraction of the suprahyoid muscles was elicited. Stimulation was continued for 10 min (total 1200 pulses) at 20 Hz on 1 day and at 30 Hz on another day, with the stimulation strength set at 90% of the intensity that elicited pain. The motor-evoked potential amplitude of suprahyoid muscles was assessed before, immediately after, and 30 min after stimulation. Stimulations at both 20 and 30 Hz significantly increased motor-evoked potential amplitude (P<0.05), with the increase maintained until 30 min after stimulation. The motor-evoked potential amplitude immediately after stimulation was not significantly different between the 20 and 30 Hz frequencies. The results indicated that repetitive magnetic stimulation increased motor-evoked potential amplitude of swallowing muscles, suggesting facilitation of the motor cortex related to swallowing in healthy individuals.

Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation With Intensive Swallowing Rehabilitation for Poststroke Dysphagia: An Open-Label Case Series

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the safety and feasibility of a six-day protocol of in-hospital repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation combined with intensive swallowing rehabilitation (rPMS-ISR) for poststroke dysphagia.

METHODS

The subjects were eight patients with dysphagia caused by bilateral cerebral infarction (age: 62-70; time from onset of stroke: 27-39 months). rPMS was applied to the suprahyoid muscles, at strength set at 90% of the minimal intensity that elicited pain with a parabolic coil. One train of stimuli comprised 20 Hz for 3 sec followed by 27-sec rest. A single session included delivery of repetitive 20 trains of stimuli over 10 min, followed by 20 min of swallowing rehabilitation. Each patient received this combination treatment twice daily, morning and afternoon, over six consecutive days. Swallowing function was evaluated before and after intervention.

RESULTS

rPMS-ISR induced significant improvement in swallowing ability, laryngeal elevation delay time, penetration aspiration scale, and swallowing quality of life (p < 0.01), but had no significant effect on the functional oral intake scale.

CONCLUSION

The six-day in-hospital RPMS-ISR protocol seems safe and feasible for poststroke patients with dysphagia. The combination protocol improved swallowing function. Further larger studies are needed to confirm its efficacy.

Noninvasive neurostimulation in chronic stroke: a double-blind randomized sham-controlled testing of clinical and corticomotor effects

BACKGROUND

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (RPMS) is a painless and noninvasive method to produce afferents via the depolarization of the peripheral nervous system. A few studies tested RPMS after-effects on cerebral plasticity and motor recovery in stroke individuals, but evidences remain limited.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore whether RPMS could mediate improvements in corticomotor and clinical outcomes associated with ankle impairments in chronic stroke.

METHODS

Eighteen subjects with chronic stroke were randomly allocated to RPMS or sham group and compared to 14 healthy subjects. Stimulation was applied over the paretic tibialis anterior (TA). Ankle impairments on the paretic side and ipsilesional TA cortical motor representation were tested clinically and by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), respectively.

RESULTS

In the RPMS group, ankle dorsiflexion mobility and maximal isometric strength increased and resistance to plantar flexor stretch decreased. The magnitude of change seemed to be related to cortical and corticospinal integrity. Sham stimulation yielded no effect. Changes in TMS outcome and their relationships with clinical improvements were limited.

CONCLUSIONS

RPMS improved ankle impairments in chronic stroke likely by a dynamic influence of sensory inputs on synaptic plasticity. The neurophysiological mechanisms potentially underlying the clinical effects are unclear. More studies are warranted to test the spinal and hemispheric changes responsible for the clinical improvements with emphasis on circuits spared by the lesion.

Noninvasive and painless magnetic stimulation of nerves improved brain motor function and mobility in a cerebral palsy case

Motor deficits in cerebral palsy disturb functional independence. This study tested whether noninvasive and painless repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation could improve motor function in a 7-year-old boy with spastic hemiparetic cerebral palsy. Stimulation was applied over different nerves of the lower limbs for 5 sessions. We measured the concurrent aftereffects of this intervention on ankle motor control, gait (walking velocity, stride length, cadence, cycle duration), and function of brain motor pathways. We observed a decrease of ankle plantar flexors resistance to stretch, an increase of active dorsiflexion range of movement, and improvements of corticospinal control of ankle dorsiflexors. Joint mobility changes were still present 15 days after the end of stimulation, when all gait parameters were also improved. Resistance to stretch was still lower than prestimulation values 45 days after the end of stimulation. This case illustrates the sustained effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation on brain plasticity, motor function, and gait. It suggests a potential impact for physical rehabilitation in cerebral palsy.

Modulation of thermal somatosensory thresholds within local and remote spinal dermatomes following cervical repetitive magnetic stimulation

BACKGROUND

Repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) modulates thermal somatosensory function at both low (0.2-1.0Hz) and high (5.0-20.0Hz) frequencies within the conditioned dermatome. However the effects of 1Hz and 20Hz cervical (C6-C7) rMS on thermosensory thresholds and contact heat evoked potentials (CHEPs) tested within local and remote spinal dermatomes are not known.

METHODS

Thirty healthy subjects participated in the study. Warm and cold detection threshold, heat and cold pain thresholds, and Cz/Fz CHEPs were evaluated within the C6, T10 and extrasegmental V3 control dermatome, before and after random assignment of subjects to sham, 1 or 20Hz C6-C7 rMS.

RESULTS

Following both 1 and 20Hz cervical rMS, warm detection threshold increased within the local C6 dermatome. Furthermore 1Hz cervical rMS increased warm detection threshold within the remote T10 dermatome, but not within the V3-trigeminal control area. Cervical rMS failed to modulate cold detection threshold, heat and cold pain threshold or Cz/Fz CHEP amplitude from the dermatomal test sites.

CONCLUSION

Both 1 and 20Hz cervical rMS modulated warm detection threshold within the locally conditioned C6 dermatome. The concomitant increase in warm detection threshold within the T10 dermatome following 1Hz rMS provides evidence for remote neuromodulation of thermosensory function via intraspinal control mechanisms.

Peripheral magnetic stimulation to decrease spasticity in cerebral palsy

Muscle spasticity in pediatric cerebral palsy limits movement and disrupts motor performance, thus its reduction is important in rehabilitation to optimize functional motor development. Our pilot study used repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation, because this emerging technology influences spinal and cerebral synaptic transmission, and its antispastic effects were reported in adult neurologic populations. We tested whether five sessions of tibial and common peroneal nerve stimulation exerted acute and long-term effects on spasticity of the ankle plantar flexor muscles in five spastic diparetic children (mean age, 8 years and 3 months; standard deviation, 1 year and 10 months). Muscle resistance to fast stretching was measured with a manual dynamometer as a spasticity indicator. A progressive decrease was observed for the more impaired leg, reaching significance at the third session. This sustained reduction of spasticity may reflect that the peripheral stimulation improved the controls over the spinal circuitry. It thus suggests that a massive stimulation-induced recruitment of sensory afferents may be able to influence central nervous system plasticity in pediatric cerebral palsy.

Noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation and pain

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are two noninvasive brain stimulation techniques that can modulate activity in specific regions of the cortex. At this point, their use in brain stimulation is primarily investigational; however, there is clear evidence that these tools can reduce pain and modify neurophysiologic correlates of the pain experience. TMS has also been used to predict response to surgically implanted stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain. Furthermore, TMS and tDCS can be applied with other techniques, such as event-related potentials and pharmacologic manipulation, to illuminate the underlying physiologic mechanisms of normal and pathological pain. This review presents a description and overview of the uses of two major brain stimulation techniques and a listing of useful references for further study.