4.2 Article

Comparison of the Effects of High- and Low-frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Upper Limb Hemiparesis in the Early Phase of Stroke

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2011.10.004

关键词

Early phase; rehabilitation; stroke; transcranial magnetic stimulation; upper limb hemiparesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recently, high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) and low-frequency rTMS (LF-rTMS) are reported to improve motor function significantly in chronic hemiparetic stroke patients. However, few studies have investigated the safety and efficacy of these rTMS modalities introduced during the early phase of stroke. The purpose of this study was to clarify the rTMS modality that is more beneficial for upper limb hemiparesis in the early phase of stroke using a randomized controlled trial. Methods: Twenty-nine patients with a hemispheric stroke lesion in the early phase of stroke were examined. Patients were randomly assigned into 3 groups: the HF-rTMS group (10 Hz rTMS to the lesional hemisphere [n = 9]), the LF-rTMS group (1 Hz rTMS to the nonlesional hemisphere [n = 11]), and the sham stimulation group [n = 9]). Patients received sessions for 5 consecutive days. Grip strength and tapping frequency were assessed before and after the intervention. Motor improvement of the affected upper limb after intervention was compared among the 3 groups. Results: All patients completed the 5-day protocol. Both the HF-rTMS and LF-rTMS groups had significant increases in both grip strength and tapping frequency. Comparison of the extent of improvement showed a more significant increase in grip strength and tapping frequency in the HF-rTMS group compared to the sham stimulation group (each P,. 05), and no difference between the LF-rTMS group and the sham stimulation group. Conclusions: HF-rTMS applied to the lesional hemisphere in the early phase of stroke was more beneficial for motor improvement of the affected upper limb than LF-rTMS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据