| Literature DB >> 36159169 |
Jin Liu1, Hengye Zhuo2, Mingliang Sun1.
Abstract
In order to study the rehabilitation of dysphagia after stroke, this paper uses tomographic imaging technology and repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation rTMS therapy to verify the effect of this treatment method on the rehabilitation of dysphagia after stroke. In this study, the method of systematic review and meta-analysis are used to comprehensively collect the current published literature on the application of repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation in post-stroke dysphagia, and to quantitatively synthesize and qualitatively analyze the data and opinions. This article aims to explore the therapeutic effect and mechanism of repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of dysphagia after stroke, and to evaluate its effectiveness, so as to better guide the application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the rehabilitation of dysphagia after stroke. The evaluation methods of rTMS for the clinical efficacy of PAS, FDS, VDS, DOSS, DD, and BI in patients with dysphagia after stroke are consistent. The influencing factors of rTMS on the swallowing function impairment of stroke include the choice of stimulation frequency, stimulation site, and stimulation time. Low-frequency stimulation of the contralateral hemisphere and high-frequency stimulation of the affected brain can reduce the excitability of the contralateral brain and enhance the excitability of the affected brain. The stimulation site is mainly in the pharyngeal cortex. Experiments show that rTMS can improve swallowing dysfunction after stroke within 2 weeks, and rTMS has no obvious side effects on swallowing dysfunction in patients with cerebral infarction.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36159169 PMCID: PMC9489420 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1118745
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Figure 1Process of swallowing reflex.
Figure 2Panning.
Figure 3Zoom.
Figure 4Rotation.
Figure 5Parallel projection.
Figure 6Literature screening process and results.
Basic characteristics of included literature.
| Numbering | Research | years | Type of study | Sample size |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Verin | 2019 | SCT | 6 |
| 2 | Ghelichi | 2016 | SCT | 5 |
| 3 | Lim | 2016 | RCT | 51 |
| 4 | Du | 2016 | RCT | 42 |
| 5 | Kim | 2021 | RCT | 29 |
| 6 | Momosaki | 2016 | SCT | 5 |
| 7 | Khedr | 2019 | RCT | 23 |
| 8 | Khedr | 2020 | RCT | 19 |
| 9 | Cheng | 2015 | SCT | 5 |
| 10 | Park | 2017 | RCT | 17 |
| 11 | Michou | 2016 | RCT | 15 |
| 12 | Lee | 2015 | PDS | 31 |
| 13 | Park | 2016 | RCT | 27 |
Note. RCT is a randomized controlled trial; SCT is a self-control before and after; PDS is a paired design study.
Types of stroke.
| Stroke type | Test group (cases) | Control group (case) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ischemic stroke | 107 | 69 | 176 |
| Hemorrhagic stroke | 35 | 33 | 68 |
| Not clear | 21 | 12 | 33 |
| Total | 163 | 114 | 277 |
Number of people in different frequency stimulation groups.
| Frequency | 1 Hz | 3 Hz | 5 Hz | 10 Hz |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of cases | 52 | 39 | 24 | 51 |
| Stimulation site | Bilateral | Healthy side | Affected side | |
| Number of cases | 24 | 67 | 72 |
Figure 7Meta-analysis of PAS scores. Note. SMD represents standardized mean difference; weight represents the weight of each included study.
Meta-analysis of FDS scores.
| Study | Weight (%) | SDM |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Kim 2021 | 28.7 | −0.285 | 0.003 |
| Lim 2016 | 37.8 | −0.77 | 0.09 |
| Lee 2015 | 33.5 | −0.645 | 0.0008 |
Figure 8Meta-analysis of BI scores.
Figure 9Meta-analysis of DOSS scores.
Figure 10Meta-analysis of DD scores.
Meta-analysis of VDS scores.
| Study | Weight (%) | SDM |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Kim 2021 high | 21.1 | 0.11 | 0.53 |
| Kim 2021 low | 18.4 | 0.98 | 0.53 |
| Lim 2016 2 week | 30.0 | 0.38 | 0.53 |
| Lim 2016 4 week | 30.5 | 0.18 | 0.53 |