BACKGROUND: Both 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) are reported to benefit upper limb motor function rehabilitation in patients with stroke. However, the efficacy of combining 1 Hz rTMS and iTBS has not been adequately explored. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the effects of 1 Hz rTMS and the combination of 1 Hz rTMS and iTBS on the upper limb motor function in the subacute phase post-stroke. METHODS:Twenty-eight participants were randomly assigned to three groups: Group A (1 Hz rTMS over the contralesional primary motor cortex (M1) and iTBS over the ipsilesional M1), Group B (contralesional 1 Hz rTMS and ipsilesional sham iTBS), and Group C (contralesional sham 1 Hz rTMS and ipsilesional sham iTBS). The participants received the same conventional rehabilitation accompanied by sessions of transcranial magnetic stimulation for two weeks (5 days one week). Motor-evoked potential (MEP), upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA), and Barthel Index (BI) were performed before and after the sessions. RESULTS: Group A showed greater UE-FMA, BI, and MEP amplitude improvement and more significant decrement in MEP latency compared to Group B and Group C in testable patients. Correlation analyses in Group A revealed a close relation between ipsilesional MEP amplitude increment and UE-FMA gain. CONCLUSIONS: The combining of 1 Hz rTMS and iTBS protocol in the present study is tolerable and more beneficial for motor improvement than the single use of 1 Hz rTMS in patients with subacute stroke.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Both 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) are reported to benefit upper limb motor function rehabilitation in patients with stroke. However, the efficacy of combining 1 Hz rTMS and iTBS has not been adequately explored. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the effects of 1 Hz rTMS and the combination of 1 Hz rTMS and iTBS on the upper limb motor function in the subacute phase post-stroke. METHODS: Twenty-eight participants were randomly assigned to three groups: Group A (1 Hz rTMS over the contralesional primary motor cortex (M1) and iTBS over the ipsilesional M1), Group B (contralesional 1 Hz rTMS and ipsilesional sham iTBS), and Group C (contralesional sham 1 Hz rTMS and ipsilesional sham iTBS). The participants received the same conventional rehabilitation accompanied by sessions of transcranial magnetic stimulation for two weeks (5 days one week). Motor-evoked potential (MEP), upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA), and Barthel Index (BI) were performed before and after the sessions. RESULTS: Group A showed greater UE-FMA, BI, and MEP amplitude improvement and more significant decrement in MEP latency compared to Group B and Group C in testable patients. Correlation analyses in Group A revealed a close relation between ipsilesional MEP amplitude increment and UE-FMA gain. CONCLUSIONS: The combining of 1 Hz rTMS and iTBS protocol in the present study is tolerable and more beneficial for motor improvement than the single use of 1 Hz rTMS in patients with subacute stroke.
Entities:
Keywords:
Transcranial magnetic stimulation; rehabilitation; stroke