Cargando…

High-Frequency Ipsilesional versus Low-Frequency Contralesional Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation after Stroke: Differential Effects on Ipsilesional Upper Extremity Motor Recovery

Background and Objectives: Stroke is a major cause of death and disability worldwide; therefore, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is being widely studied and clinically applied to improve motor deficits in the affected arm. However, recent studies indicate that the function of both arms can b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Petruseviciene, Laura, Sack, Alexander T., Kubilius, Raimondas, Savickas, Raimondas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10672822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38004004
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina59111955
_version_ 1785140481055784960
author Petruseviciene, Laura
Sack, Alexander T.
Kubilius, Raimondas
Savickas, Raimondas
author_facet Petruseviciene, Laura
Sack, Alexander T.
Kubilius, Raimondas
Savickas, Raimondas
author_sort Petruseviciene, Laura
collection PubMed
description Background and Objectives: Stroke is a major cause of death and disability worldwide; therefore, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is being widely studied and clinically applied to improve motor deficits in the affected arm. However, recent studies indicate that the function of both arms can be affected after stroke. It currently remains unknown how various TMS methods affect the function of the ipsilesional upper extremity. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five subacute stroke patients with upper extremity motor deficits were enrolled in this study and randomly allocated into three groups, receiving either (1) low-frequency rTMS over the contralesional hemisphere; (2) high-frequency rTMS over the ipsilesional hemisphere; or (3) no stimulation. Experimental groups received 10 rTMS sessions over two weeks alongside standard rehabilitation, and the control group received the same procedures except for rTMS. Both affected and unaffected upper extremity motor function was evaluated using hand grip strength and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) tests before and after rehabilitation (7 weeks apart). Results: All groups showed significant improvement in both the affected and unaffected hand grip and FIM scores (p < 0.05). HF-rTMS led to a notably higher increase in unaffected hand grip strength than the control group (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the improvement in affected upper extremity motor function between the groups. The FIM score increase was lower in the control group compared to experimental groups, although not statistically significant. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the positive effect of ipsilesional HF-rTMS on the improvement in unaffected arm motor function and reveals the positive effect of both LF- and HF-rTMS on the affected upper extremity motor function recovery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10672822
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106728222023-11-06 High-Frequency Ipsilesional versus Low-Frequency Contralesional Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation after Stroke: Differential Effects on Ipsilesional Upper Extremity Motor Recovery Petruseviciene, Laura Sack, Alexander T. Kubilius, Raimondas Savickas, Raimondas Medicina (Kaunas) Article Background and Objectives: Stroke is a major cause of death and disability worldwide; therefore, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is being widely studied and clinically applied to improve motor deficits in the affected arm. However, recent studies indicate that the function of both arms can be affected after stroke. It currently remains unknown how various TMS methods affect the function of the ipsilesional upper extremity. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five subacute stroke patients with upper extremity motor deficits were enrolled in this study and randomly allocated into three groups, receiving either (1) low-frequency rTMS over the contralesional hemisphere; (2) high-frequency rTMS over the ipsilesional hemisphere; or (3) no stimulation. Experimental groups received 10 rTMS sessions over two weeks alongside standard rehabilitation, and the control group received the same procedures except for rTMS. Both affected and unaffected upper extremity motor function was evaluated using hand grip strength and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) tests before and after rehabilitation (7 weeks apart). Results: All groups showed significant improvement in both the affected and unaffected hand grip and FIM scores (p < 0.05). HF-rTMS led to a notably higher increase in unaffected hand grip strength than the control group (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the improvement in affected upper extremity motor function between the groups. The FIM score increase was lower in the control group compared to experimental groups, although not statistically significant. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the positive effect of ipsilesional HF-rTMS on the improvement in unaffected arm motor function and reveals the positive effect of both LF- and HF-rTMS on the affected upper extremity motor function recovery. MDPI 2023-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10672822/ /pubmed/38004004 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina59111955 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Petruseviciene, Laura
Sack, Alexander T.
Kubilius, Raimondas
Savickas, Raimondas
High-Frequency Ipsilesional versus Low-Frequency Contralesional Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation after Stroke: Differential Effects on Ipsilesional Upper Extremity Motor Recovery
title High-Frequency Ipsilesional versus Low-Frequency Contralesional Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation after Stroke: Differential Effects on Ipsilesional Upper Extremity Motor Recovery
title_full High-Frequency Ipsilesional versus Low-Frequency Contralesional Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation after Stroke: Differential Effects on Ipsilesional Upper Extremity Motor Recovery
title_fullStr High-Frequency Ipsilesional versus Low-Frequency Contralesional Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation after Stroke: Differential Effects on Ipsilesional Upper Extremity Motor Recovery
title_full_unstemmed High-Frequency Ipsilesional versus Low-Frequency Contralesional Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation after Stroke: Differential Effects on Ipsilesional Upper Extremity Motor Recovery
title_short High-Frequency Ipsilesional versus Low-Frequency Contralesional Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation after Stroke: Differential Effects on Ipsilesional Upper Extremity Motor Recovery
title_sort high-frequency ipsilesional versus low-frequency contralesional transcranial magnetic stimulation after stroke: differential effects on ipsilesional upper extremity motor recovery
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10672822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38004004
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina59111955
work_keys_str_mv AT petrusevicienelaura highfrequencyipsilesionalversuslowfrequencycontralesionaltranscranialmagneticstimulationafterstrokedifferentialeffectsonipsilesionalupperextremitymotorrecovery
AT sackalexandert highfrequencyipsilesionalversuslowfrequencycontralesionaltranscranialmagneticstimulationafterstrokedifferentialeffectsonipsilesionalupperextremitymotorrecovery
AT kubiliusraimondas highfrequencyipsilesionalversuslowfrequencycontralesionaltranscranialmagneticstimulationafterstrokedifferentialeffectsonipsilesionalupperextremitymotorrecovery
AT savickasraimondas highfrequencyipsilesionalversuslowfrequencycontralesionaltranscranialmagneticstimulationafterstrokedifferentialeffectsonipsilesionalupperextremitymotorrecovery