4.5 Article

EFFECTS OF REPETITIVE TRASCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION ON REPETITIVE FACILITATION EXERCISES OF THE HEMIPLEGIC HAND IN CHRONIC STROKE PATIENTS

Journal

JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
Volume 45, Issue 9, Pages 843-847

Publisher

FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-1175

Keywords

functional recovery; hemiplegia; repetitive facilitation exercises; repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; stroke

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate whether multiple sessions of 1-Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) facilitates the effect of repetitive facilitation exercises on hemiplegic upper-limb function in chronic stroke patients. Design: Randomized double-blinded crossover study. Patients: Eighteen patients with hemiplegia of the upper limb. Methods: Patients were assigned to 2 groups: a motor-before-sham rTMS group, which performed motor rTMS sessions for 2 weeks followed by sham rTMS sessions for 2 weeks; or a motor-following-sham rTMS group, which performed sham rTMS sessions for 2 weeks followed by motor rTMS sessions for 2 weeks. Patients received 1-.Hz rTMS to the unaffected motor cortex for 4 min and performed repetitive facilitation exercises for 40 min during motor rTMS sessions. The Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and Simple Test for Evaluating Hand Function were used to evaluate upper-limb function. The Modified Ashworth Scale and F-wave were measured to evaluate spasticity. Results: Motor function improved significantly during the motor, but not sham, rTMS sessions. ARAT score gains were 1.5 (0-4.0) (median, interquartile range) during the motor rTMS session, and 0 (-0.8-1.8) during the sham rTMS session (p=0.04). Spasticity did not significantly change during either session. Conclusion: Multiple sessions of 1-Hz rTMS facilitated the effects of repetitive facilitation exercises in improving motor function of the affected upper limb, but did not change spasticity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available