4.6 Article

Action of 5 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on sensory, motor and autonomic function in human spinal cord injury

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 122, 期 12, 页码 2452-2461

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2011.04.022

关键词

Spinal cord injury; Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; ASIA impairment scale; Motor evoked potentials; Electrical perceptual threshold; Sympathetic skin response

资金

  1. International Spinal Research Trust (ISRT) [CLI007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of physiological outcome measures in detecting functional change in the degree of impairment of spinal cord injury (SCI) following repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the sensorimotor cortex. Methods: Subjects with complete or incomplete cervical (or T1) SCI received real and sham rTMS in a randomised placebo-controlled single-blinded cross-over trial. rTMS at sub-threshold intensity for upper-limb muscles was applied (5 Hz, 900 stimuli) on 5 consecutive days. Assessments made before and for 2 weeks after treatment comprised the ASIA (American Spinal Injuries Association) impairment scale (AIS), the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), a peg-board test, electrical perceptual test (EPT), motor evoked potentials, cortical silent period, cardiovascular and sympathetic skin responses. Results: There were no significant differences in AIS outcomes between real and sham rTMS. The ARAT was increased at 1 h after real rTMS compared to baseline. Active motor threshold for the most caudally innervated hand muscle was increased at 72 and 120 h compared to baseline. Persistent reductions in EPT to rTMS occurred in two individuals. Conclusions: Changes in cortical motor threshold measures may accompany functional gains to rTMS in SCI subjects. Significance: Electrophysiological measures may provide a useful adjunct to ASIA impairment scales. (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. on behalf of International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.

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