4.6 Article

Reduction of Spasticity With Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury

期刊

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 435-441

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1545968309356095

关键词

spasticity; repetitive TMS; spinal cord injury; neurophysiological examination

资金

  1. Foundation La Marato [TV3 (071931)]
  2. Catedra BBVA [CAT06/023]
  3. CNRS, Paris, France [UMR 5105 LPNC]
  4. INSERM Unit, Paris, France [S975-ICM]
  5. FIS [PI082004]
  6. National Institutes of Health [K24 RR018875, UL1 RR025758]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Spasticity with increased tone and spasms is frequent in patients after spinal cord injury (SCI). Damage to descending corticospinal pathways that normally exert spinal segmental control is thought to play an important causal role in spasticity. The authors examined whether the modulation of excitability of the primary motor cortex with high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) could modify lower limb spasticity in patients with incomplete SCI. Methods. Patients were assessed by the Modified Ashworth Scale,Visual Analogue Scale, and the Spinal Cord Injury Spasticity Evaluation Tool (SCI-SET) and neurophysiologically with measures of corticospinal and segmental excitability by the H-max/M-max,T reflex, and withdrawal reflex. Fifteen patients received 5 days of daily sessions of active (n = 14) or sham (n = 7) rTMS to the leg motor area (20 trains of 40 pulses at 20 Hz and an intensity of 90% of resting motor threshold for the biceps brachii muscle). Result. A significant clinical improvement in lower limb spasticity was observed in patients following active rTMS but not after sham stimulation. This improvement lasted for at least I week following the intervention. Neurophysiological studies did not change. Conclusions. High-frequency rTMS over the leg motor area can improve aspects of spasticity in patients with incomplete SCI.

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

4.6
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