Literature DB >> 22412171

Theta burst stimulation in the rehabilitation of the upper limb: a semirandomized, placebo-controlled trial in chronic stroke patients.

Penelope Talelli1, Amanda Wallace, Michelle Dileone, Damon Hoad, Binith Cheeran, Rupert Oliver, Mehdi VandenBos, Ulrike Hammerbeck, Karen Barratt, Cecilia Gillini, Gabriella Musumeci, Marie-Hélène Boudrias, Geoffrey C Cloud, Joanna Ball, Jonathan F Marsden, Nicholas S Ward, Vincenzo Di Lazzaro, Richard G Greenwood, John C Rothwell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive cortical stimulation could represent an add-on treatment to enhance motor recovery after stroke. However, its clinical value, including anticipated size and duration of the treatment effects, remains largely unknown.
OBJECTIVE: The authors designed a small semi-randomized clinical trial to explore whether long-lasting clinically important gains can be achieved by adding theta burst stimulation (TBS), a form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), to a rehabilitation program for the hand.
METHODS: A total of 41 chronic stroke patients received excitatory TBS to the ipsilesional hemisphere or inhibitory TBS to the contralesional hemisphere in 2 centers; each active group was compared with a group receiving sham TBS. TBS was followed by physical therapy for 10 working days. Patients and therapists were blinded to the type of TBS. Primary outcome measures (9-hole Peg Test [9HPT], Jebsen Taylor Test [JTT], and grip and pinch-grip dynamometry) were assessed 4, 30, and 90 days post treatment. The clinically important difference was defined as 10% of the maximum score.
RESULTS: There were no differences between the active treatment and sham groups in any of the outcome measures. All patients achieved small sustainable improvements--9HPT, 5% of maximum (confidence interval [CI] = 3%-7%); JTT, 5.7% (CI = 3%-8%); and grip strength, 6% (CI = 2%-10%)--all below the defined clinically important level.
CONCLUSIONS: Cortical stimulation did not augment the gains from a late rehabilitation program. The effect size anticipated by the authors was overestimated. These results can improve the design of future work on therapeutic uses of TMS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22412171      PMCID: PMC3719964          DOI: 10.1177/1545968312437940

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair        ISSN: 1545-9683            Impact factor:   3.919


  47 in total

1.  Sham TMS: intracerebral measurement of the induced electrical field and the induction of motor-evoked potentials.

Authors:  S H Lisanby; D Gutman; B Luber; C Schroeder; H A Sackeim
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 13.382

2.  Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  J H van der Lee; R C Wagenaar; G J Lankhorst; T W Vogelaar; W L Devillé; L M Bouter
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 7.914

3.  The analysis of multiple endpoints in clinical trials.

Authors:  S J Pocock; N L Geller; A A Tsiatis
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups.

Authors:  D R Taves
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 6.875

5.  An objective and standardized test of hand function.

Authors:  R H Jebsen; N Taylor; R B Trieschmann; M J Trotter; L A Howard
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1969-06       Impact factor: 3.966

6.  Arm function after stroke: measurement and recovery over the first three months.

Authors:  A Heller; D T Wade; V A Wood; A Sunderland; R L Hewer; E Ward
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 10.154

7.  Neural correlates of motor recovery after stroke: a longitudinal fMRI study.

Authors:  N S Ward; M M Brown; A J Thompson; R S J Frackowiak
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2003-08-22       Impact factor: 13.501

8.  Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke.

Authors:  Nagako Murase; Julie Duque; Riccardo Mazzocchio; Leonardo G Cohen
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 10.422

9.  Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an adjunct to constraint-induced therapy: an exploratory randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Matthew P Malcolm; William J Triggs; Kathye E Light; Leslie J Gonzalez Rothi; Sam Wu; Kimberly Reid; Stephen E Nadeau
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.159

10.  The Rivermead Assessment of Somatosensory Performance (RASP): standardization and reliability data.

Authors:  Charlotte E Winward; Peter W Halligan; Derick T Wade
Journal:  Clin Rehabil       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.477

View more
  61 in total

1.  Inhibition versus facilitation of contralesional motor cortices in stroke: Deriving a model to tailor brain stimulation.

Authors:  Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Andre G Machado; Adriana B Conforto; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; David A Cunningham; Nicole M Varnerin; Xiaofeng Wang; Ken Sakaie; Ela B Plow
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 3.708

2.  The effects of five sessions of continuous theta burst stimulation over contralesional sensorimotor cortex paired with paretic skilled motor practice in people with chronic stroke.

Authors:  J L Neva; K E Brown; K P Wadden; C S Mang; M R Borich; S K Meehan; L A Boyd
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 3.  Priming the brain to capitalize on metaplasticity in stroke rehabilitation.

Authors:  Jessica M Cassidy; Bernadette T Gillick; James R Carey
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2013-08-15

4.  Numerical modelling of plasticity induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  M T Wilson; D P Goodwin; P W Brownjohn; J Shemmell; J N J Reynolds
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 1.621

5.  Serial treatments of primed low-frequency rTMS in stroke: characteristics of responders vs. nonresponders.

Authors:  James R Carey; Huiqiong Deng; Bernadette T Gillick; Jessica M Cassidy; David C Anderson; Lei Zhang; William Thomas
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 6.  Motor compensation and its effects on neural reorganization after stroke.

Authors:  Theresa A Jones
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 34.870

Review 7.  Biomarkers and predictors of restorative therapy effects after stroke.

Authors:  Erin Burke; Steven C Cramer
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.081

8.  Stimulation targeting higher motor areas in stroke rehabilitation: A proof-of-concept, randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled study of effectiveness and underlying mechanisms.

Authors:  David A Cunningham; Nicole Varnerin; Andre Machado; Corin Bonnett; Daniel Janini; Sarah Roelle; Kelsey Potter-Baker; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Xiaofeng Wang; Guang Yue; Ela B Plow
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.406

9.  Rethinking stimulation of the brain in stroke rehabilitation: why higher motor areas might be better alternatives for patients with greater impairments.

Authors:  Ela B Plow; David A Cunningham; Nicole Varnerin; Andre Machado
Journal:  Neuroscientist       Date:  2014-06-20       Impact factor: 7.519

Review 10.  Cerebral network disorders after stroke: evidence from imaging-based connectivity analyses of active and resting brain states in humans.

Authors:  Anne K Rehme; Christian Grefkes
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 5.182

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.