| Literature DB >> 34975377 |
Jiamin Li1,2,3, Cen Chen1, Shenyu Zhu4, Xiulian Niu1, Xidan Yu1, Jie Ren2, Min Shen1,2.
Abstract
Objective: The goal of this study is to explore the effect of wrist-ankle acupuncture combined with 5-Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on improving spastic state and motor function of children with spastic cerebral palsy by measuring electrophysiological parameters and behaviors.Entities:
Keywords: corticospinal tract (CST); motor evoked potential (MEP); repetative transcranial magnetic stimulation; spasm; wrist-ankle acupuncture
Year: 2021 PMID: 34975377 PMCID: PMC8714760 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.771064
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
Descriptive characteristics of participants.
| Experimental Group | Control Group | t/Z/x2 | ||
|
| ||||
| Gender | ||||
| Male, N(%) | 9(64.3) | 10(71.4) | 0.686 | 0.164 |
| Female, N(%) | 5(35.7) | 4(28.6) | ||
| Age (m) | 64.42 ± 21.10 | 69.28 ± 18.15 | 0.198 | 0.653 |
| Height (cm) | 116.42 ± 14.37 | 119.28 ± 12.82 | 0.638 | 0.555 |
| Weight (kg) | 21.14 ± 6.16 | 21.92 ± 6.53 | 0.747 | 0.323 |
| Classification of cerebral palsy | ||||
| Hemiplegia, N(%) | 5(35.7) | 6(42.9) | 0.699 | 0.150 |
| Diplegia, N(%) | 9(64.3) | 8(57.1) | ||
| Gross motor function classification system | ||||
| Level I, N(%) | 8(57.1) | 5(35.7) | 0.429 | 1.692 |
| Level II, N(%) | 3(21.4) | 6(42.9) | ||
| Level III, N(%) | 3(21.4) | 3(21.4) | ||
Continuous variables were presented as mean ±SD.
FIGURE 1Study design flow chart.
FIGURE 2International 10-20 EEG electrode location map.
Outcome scores at baseline (mean ±SD).
| Experimental Group | Control Group | |||
|
| ||||
| GMFM-66 MTS ( | 79.34 ± 11.37 | 72.46 ± 9.44 | 0.428 | |
| | 16.17 ± 8.87 | 14.08 ± 4.91 | 0.956 | |
| | 13.33 ± 4.92 | 10.46 ± 4.62 | 0.561 | |
| | 12.50 ± 5.84 | 12.62 ± 5.49 | 0.905 | |
| MEP LAT | 32.49 ± 10.36 | 29.64 ± 9.48 | 0.414 | |
| MEP AMP | 0.07 ± 0.02 | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 0.536 | |
| MEP DUR | 6.03 ± 1.34 | 6.56 ± 1.32 | 0.606 | |
Changes of outcome scores (mean ±SD).
| Experimental Group | Control Group | |||
|
| ||||
| GMFM-66 MTS ( | 5.75 ± 2.66 | 2.81 ± 1.65 | 0.026 | |
| | 8.25 ± 7.98 | 5.53 ± 4.96 | 0.435 | |
| | 3.41 ± 4.79 | 1.61 ± 2.25 | 0.434 | |
| | 3.66 ± 4.71 | 3.07 ± 3.81 | 0.648 | |
| MEP LAT | 8.65 ± 8.41 | 2.31 ± 1.67 | 0.026 | |
| MEP AMP | 0.07 ± 0.06 | 0.03 ± 0.04 | 0.051 | |
| MEP DUR | 1.23 ± 1.06 | 1.07 ± 0.76 | 0.462 | |
FIGURE 3Comparison of GMFM-66 scores. (A) Comparison of score value in the same group before and after treatment. (B) Comparison of differences between the two groups before and after treatment. * indicates intra-group p < 0.05, and # indicates inter-group p < 0.05.
FIGURE 9Comparison of duration of motor evoked potentials. * indicates intra-group p < 0.05.