Peripheral magnetic theta burst stimulation to muscles can effectively reduce spasticity: a randomized controlled trial

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.

The effectiveness of intermittent theta burst stimulation for upper limb motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) is a promising noninvasive therapy to restore the excitability of the cortex, and subsequently improve the function of the upper extremities. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of iTBS in restoring upper limb function and modulating cortical excitability. We aimed to evaluate the effects of iTBS on upper limb motor recovery after stroke.

Objective

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the influence of intermittent theta-burst stimulation on upper limb motor recovery and improve the quality of life.

Method

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CBM, including only English studies, to identify studies that investigated the effects of iTBS on upper limb recovery, compared with sham iTBS used in control groups. Effect size was reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD).

Results

Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that when compared to the control group, the iTBS group had a significant difference in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) (WMD: 3.20, 95% CI: 1.42 to 4.97; WMD: 3.72, 95% CI: 2.13 to 5.30, respectively). In addition, there was also a significant improvement in the modified Ashworth scale (MAS) compared to the sham group (WMD: -0.56; 95% CI: -0.85 to -0.28). More evidence is still needed to confirm the effect of Barthel Index (BI) scores after interventions. However, no significant effect was found for the assessment of Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) amplitude and MEP latency (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.90; SMD: 0.35, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.87; SMD: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.55; respectively).

Conclusion

Our results showed that iTBS significantly improved motor impairment, functional activities, and reduced muscle tone of upper limbs, thereby increasing the ability to perform Activities of Daily Living (ADL) in stroke patients, while there were no significant differences in MEPs. In conclusion, iTBS is a promising non-invasive brain stimulation as an adjunct to therapy and enhances the therapeutic effect of conventional physical therapy. In the future, more randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes, high quality, and follow-up are necessary to explore the neurophysiological effects.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023392739.

Emerging theory of sensitization in post-stroke muscle spasticity

Spasticity, characterized by a velocity-dependent increase in muscle tone and exaggerated reflexes, is a common complication in individuals with upper motor neuron syndrome, such as stroke survivors. Sensitization, the heightened responsiveness of the nervous system to sensory stimuli, has emerged as a potential cause of spasticity. This perspective article explores three emerging treatments targeting sensitization. Recent studies have investigated novel treatment modalities for spasticity, including Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (ESWT), repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS), and needling. ESWT has shown promising results in reducing spasticity in both the upper and lower extremities, potentially through mechanisms such as nitric oxide production, rheological property changes, and neuromuscular transmission dysfunction. rPMS offers a non-invasive approach that may reduce spasticity by increasing sensory input, enhancing cortical activation, and exerting tissue-softening effects. Needling has also demonstrated positive effects on spasticity reduction. The high heterogeneity observed indicates the need for more rigorous research to confirm these findings. Recently, mechanical needling and sterile water injection invented by the author is also promising for reducing spasticity through removing sensitization. In conclusion, the emerging treatment options discussed in this perspective article provide promising avenues for addressing sensitization in spasticity and improving motor function. However, further research is needed to validate their findings, optimize treatment protocols, and investigate their long-term effects on motor recovery and overall quality of life in individuals with spasticity.

Effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for the upper limb after stroke: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) can stimulate profound neuromuscular tissues painlessly to evoke action potentials in motor axons and induce muscle contraction for treating neurological conditions. It has been increasingly used in stroke rehabilitation as an easy-to-administer approach for therapeutic neuromodulation.

Objective

We performed this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to systematically evaluate the effects of rPMS for the upper limb in patients with stroke, including motor impairment, muscle spasticity, muscle strength, and activity limitation outcomes.

Methods

The meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) were searched for articles published before June 2022. Forest plots were employed to estimate the pooled results of the included studies, and the I2 statistical analysis was used to identify the source of heterogeneity. Publication bias was examined by Egger's regression tests or visual inspection of the funnel plots.

Results

The database searches yielded 1052 potential eligible literature; of them, five randomized controlled trials met the eligible criteria, involving a total of 188 participants. Patients in the rPMS group showed better improvement in motor impairment as measured by the FM-UE (MD: 5.39 [95% CI, 4.26 to 6.52]; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) compared with the control group. Among the secondary outcomes, no difference was found in the improvement of muscle spasticity (SMD: 0.36 [95% CI, -0.05 to 0.77]; P = 0.08; I2 = 41%). There was a significant difference in the proximal (SMD: 0.58 [95% CI, 0.10 to 1.06]; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%) but not the distal muscle strength (SMD: 1.18 [95% CI, -1.00 to 3.36]; P = 0.29; I2 = 93%). Moreover, the activity limitation outcomes were significantly improved with rPMS intervention (SMD: 0.59 [95% CI, 0.08 to 1.10]; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis showed that rPMS might improve upper limb motor impairment, proximal muscle strength, and activity limitation outcomes but not muscle spasticity and distal strength in patients after stroke. Due to the limited number of studies, further randomized clinical trials are still warranted for more accurate interpretation and clinical recommendation.

Effects of transcranial combined with peripheral repetitive magnetic stimulation on limb spasticity and resting-state brain activity in stroke patients

Background and objective

Transcranial magnetic stimulation and peripheral repetitive magnetic stimulation (rPMS), as non-invasive neuromodulation techniques, can promote functional recovery in patients with post-stroke spasticity (PSS), but the effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with peripheral magnetic stimulation on PSS remain largely unknown. Therefore, we examined the effects of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS) combined with rPMS on PSS patients and its potential neural correlates to behavioral improvements.

Methods

Forty-nine PSS patients were divided randomly into three groups: a combined group (n = 20), a LF-rTMS group (n = 15), and a control group (n = 14). The combined group received LF-rTMS and rPMS treatment, the rTMS group received LF-rTMS treatment, and the control group received only routine rehabilitation. All patients underwent Ashworth Spasm Scale (MAS), upper extremity Fugl-Meyer (FMA-UE), and modified Barthel Index (MBI) assessments before and after intervention. In addition, resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging data were collected pre- and post-treatment to observe changes in the amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (ALFF).

Results

The MAS score was decreased, FMA-UE score and MBI scores were increased in the three groups after therapy than before therapy (all P &lt; 0.05). In particular, the combined group showed significant effect on improved motor function and relieved spasticity in PSS (P &lt; 0.01). Moreover, the combined treatment increased ALFF values mainly in the right supplementary motor area, right middle frontal gyrus, and right cerebellum, while reduced ALFF values mainly in the right post-central gyrus compared with pre-treatment. Compared with the LF-rTMS and control groups, the combined treatment increased ALFF values in the right cerebellum and reduced ALFF values mainly in the frontoparietal cortex. Improvements in the MAS score were positively correlated with the change in ALFF values in the right cerebellum (r = 0.698, P = 0.001) and the right supplementary motor area (r = 0.700, P = 0.001) after combined treatment.

Conclusion

Transcranial combined with peripheral repetitive magnetic stimulation could improve spastic state and motor function in PSS patients, and this effect may be associated with altered cerebellar and frontoparietal cortical activity.

Clinical trial registration

http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx, identifier ChiCTR1800019452.

Effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation on spasticity evaluated with modified Ashworth scale/Ashworth scale in patients with spastic paralysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Spasticity is a common motor disorder resulting from upper motor neuron lesions. It has a serious influence on an individual's motor function and daily activity. Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a non-invasive and painless approach developed for therapeutic intervention in clinical rehabilitation. However, the effectiveness of this intervention on spasticity in patients with spastic paralysis remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of rPMS on spasticity, motor function, and activities of daily living in individuals with spastic paralysis.

METHODS

PubMed, PEDro, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for eligible papers with date up to March 31, 2022. Two independent researchers conducted study screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment. RCTs that explored the effects of rPMS on spasticity, motor function, and activities of daily living in patients with spastic paralysis were included for review. The Cochrane collaboration tool was used to assess methodological quality. The cumulative effects of available data were processed for a meta-analysis using Reedman software.

RESULTS

Eight studies with 297 participants were included. Most of the studies presented low to moderate risk of bias. Compared with the control group, the results showed that rPMS had a significant effect on spasticity (all spasticity outcomes: standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.94 to -0.16, I 2 = 40%, and P = 0.006, Modified Ashworth Scale: mean difference [MD] = -0.48, 95% CI: -0.82 to -0.14, I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.006), motor function (Fugl-Meyer Assessment: MD = 4.17, 95% CI: 0.89 to 7.46, I 2 = 28%, and P = 0.01), and activities of daily living (Barthel Index: MD = 5.12, 95% CI: 2.58 to 7.67, I 2 = 0%, and P < 0.0001). No side effect was reported.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis demonstrated that the evidence supported rPMS in improving spasticity especially for passive muscle properties evaluated with Modified Ashworth Scale/Ashworth Scale, as well as motor function and daily activity of living in individuals with spastic paralysis.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The reviewed protocol of this study is registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42022322395).

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42022322395.