Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation combined with transcranial magnetic stimulation in rehabilitation of upper extremity hemiparesis following stroke: a pilot study

• Published in: Journal of rehabilitation medicine 2024-02, Vol.56, p.jrm19449-jrm19449
• Main Authors: Liang, Sijie, Wang, Weining, Yu, Fengyun, Pan, Li, Xu, Dongyan, Hu, Ruiping, Tian, Shan, Xiang, Jie, Zhu, Yulian
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Barthel Index; Correlation analysis; Functional assessment; Humans; Inhibition; ipsilateral hemisphere; Magnetic Phenomena; motor cortex excitability; motor function; Original Report; paired associative stimulation; Paresis - rehabilitation; Physiotherapy; Pilot Projects; Recovery of Function; Rehabilitation; repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation; repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; Stimulus; Stroke; Stroke - therapy; Stroke Rehabilitation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Treatment Outcome; Upper Extremity; Upper limbs
• ISSN: 1651-2081; 1650-1977; 1651-2081
• DOI: 10.2340/jrm.v56.19449

To investigate the effect of combined repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation on upper extremity function in subacute stroke patients. Pilot study. Subacute stroke patients. Included patients were randomized into 3 groups: a central-associated peripheral stimulation (CPS) group, a central-stimulation-only (CS) group, and a control (C) group. The CPS group underwent a new paired associative stimulation (combined repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation), the CS group underwent repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and the C group underwent sham stimulation. All 3 groups received physiotherapy after the stimulation or sham stimulation. The treatment comprised 20 once-daily sessions. Primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score, and secondary outcomes were the Barthel Index and Comprehensive Functional Assessment scores, and neurophysiological assessments were mainly short-interval intracortical inhibition. A 3-group (CPS, CS, C) × 2-time (before, after intervention) repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether changes in scores were significantly different between the 3 groups. A total of 45 patients were included in the analysis. Between-group comparisons on the FMA-UE demonstrated a significant improvement (group × time interaction, F2,42 = 4.86; p = 0.013; C vs CS, p = 0.020; C vs CPS, p = 0.016; CS vs CPS, p = 0.955). Correlation analysis did not find any substantial positive correlation between changes in FMA-UE and short-interval intracortical inhibition variables (C, r = -0.196, p = 0.483; CS, r = -0.169, p = 0.546; CPS, r = -0.424, p = 0.115). This study suggests that the real-stimulus (CS and CPS) groups had better outcomes than the control (C) group. In addition, the CPS group showed a better trend in clinical and neurophysiological assessments compared with the CS group.