3.8 Article

Factors Associated With Upper Extremity Motor Recovery After Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Stroke Patients

Journal

ANNALS OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE-ARM
Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages 268-276

Publisher

KOREAN ACAD REHABILITATION MEDICINE
DOI: 10.5535/arm.2015.39.2.268

Keywords

Stroke; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Motor function

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To determine factors associated with motor recovery of the upper extremity after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment in stroke patients. Methods Twenty-nine patients with subacute stroke participated in this study. rTMS was applied to the hand motor cortex for 10 minutes at a 110% resting motor threshold and 10 Hz frequency for two weeks. We evaluated the biographical, neurological, clinical, and functional variables, in addition to the motor-evoked potential (MEP) response. The Manual Function Test (MFT) was performed before, immediately after, and two weeks after, the treatment. Patients were divided into a responder and non-responder group according to their respective improvements on the MFT. Data were compared between the two groups. Results Patients with exclusively subcortical stroke, absence of aphasia, the presence of a MEP response, high scores on the Mini-Mental Status Examination, Motricity Index arm score, Functional Independence Measure, and Functional Ambulatory Classification; and a shorter period from stroke onset to rTMS were found to be significantly associated with a response to rTMS. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that rTMS may have a greater effect on upper extremity motor recovery in stroke patients who have a MEP response, suffer an exclusively subcortical stroke, mild paresis, and have good functional status. Applying rTMS early would have additional positive effects in the patients with the identified characteristics.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available