Evaluation of Contralateral Limb Cross Education and High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Functional Indices of the Affected Upper Limb in Subacute Phase of Stroke

IF 1.8 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Katayoon Rezaei, Amin Kordi Yoosefinejad, Farzaneh Moslemi Haghighi, Mohsen Razeghi
{"title":"Evaluation of Contralateral Limb Cross Education and High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Functional Indices of the Affected Upper Limb in Subacute Phase of Stroke","authors":"Katayoon Rezaei, Amin Kordi Yoosefinejad, Farzaneh Moslemi Haghighi, Mohsen Razeghi","doi":"10.1155/2023/4387667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Stroke is one of the causes of long-term morbidity. Despite rehabilitation strategies, most survivors live with motor deficits in the upper limbs. Objectives. The aim of the study was to compare the effect of contralateral cross education (CE) and high-frequency repetitive magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) on the function of upper extremity in subacute phase of stroke. Methods. Forty patients were randomly assigned into 4 groups. Group “A” received physical therapy (PT) for 10 sessions, 3 times per week. Group “B” received PT and HF-rTMS as follows: stimulation of 20 Hz for 5 s, intertrain interval for 50 s, 20 trains, 2000 pulses at 90% resting motor threshold, and conventional PT. Group “C” was treated with CE and PT. In group “D,” HF-rTMS, CE, and PT were administered. Results. Significant differences were found in the Fugl-Meyer scale between “A” and “C” (\n \n P\n =\n 0.01\n \n ), “A” and “D” (\n \n P\n =\n 0.02\n \n ), and “B” and “C” groups (\n \n P\n =\n 0.01\n \n ). In the box-block test, there were significant differences between “A” and “B” (\n \n P\n =\n 0.01\n \n ), “A” and “C” (\n \n P\n <\n 0.001\n \n ), “B” and “D” (\n \n P\n =\n 0.001\n \n ), and “B” and “C” groups (\n \n P\n =\n 0.01\n \n ). Statistical differences were observed in grip strength between “A” and “B” (\n \n P\n =\n 0.01\n \n ) and “A” and “C” groups (\n \n P\n =\n 0.02\n \n ). Conclusions. It is suggested that clinicians select the therapeutic methods in line with their expected goal. When the goal is to improve upper extremity function, CE+PT could be more effective than HF-rTMS+PT. Also, CE+PT and HF-rTMS+PT were more effective than CE+HF-rTMS+PT at improving grip strength. Therefore, combining several methods would not always lead to better results.","PeriodicalId":22054,"journal":{"name":"Stroke Research and Treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4387667","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Stroke is one of the causes of long-term morbidity. Despite rehabilitation strategies, most survivors live with motor deficits in the upper limbs. Objectives. The aim of the study was to compare the effect of contralateral cross education (CE) and high-frequency repetitive magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) on the function of upper extremity in subacute phase of stroke. Methods. Forty patients were randomly assigned into 4 groups. Group “A” received physical therapy (PT) for 10 sessions, 3 times per week. Group “B” received PT and HF-rTMS as follows: stimulation of 20 Hz for 5 s, intertrain interval for 50 s, 20 trains, 2000 pulses at 90% resting motor threshold, and conventional PT. Group “C” was treated with CE and PT. In group “D,” HF-rTMS, CE, and PT were administered. Results. Significant differences were found in the Fugl-Meyer scale between “A” and “C” ( P = 0.01 ), “A” and “D” ( P = 0.02 ), and “B” and “C” groups ( P = 0.01 ). In the box-block test, there were significant differences between “A” and “B” ( P = 0.01 ), “A” and “C” ( P < 0.001 ), “B” and “D” ( P = 0.001 ), and “B” and “C” groups ( P = 0.01 ). Statistical differences were observed in grip strength between “A” and “B” ( P = 0.01 ) and “A” and “C” groups ( P = 0.02 ). Conclusions. It is suggested that clinicians select the therapeutic methods in line with their expected goal. When the goal is to improve upper extremity function, CE+PT could be more effective than HF-rTMS+PT. Also, CE+PT and HF-rTMS+PT were more effective than CE+HF-rTMS+PT at improving grip strength. Therefore, combining several methods would not always lead to better results.
评估对侧肢体交叉教育和高频重复经颅磁刺激对脑卒中亚急性期受累上肢功能指标的影响
背景。脑卒中是导致长期发病的原因之一。尽管采取了康复策略,但大多数幸存者的上肢仍存在运动障碍。研究目的研究旨在比较对侧交叉教育(CE)和高频重复磁刺激(HF-rTMS)对中风亚急性期上肢功能的影响。研究方法将 40 名患者随机分为 4 组。A组 "接受物理治疗(PT),共10次,每周3次。B组 "接受物理治疗和高频经颅磁刺激,具体如下:刺激频率为20赫兹,持续时间为5秒,间隔时间为50秒,共20次,脉冲数为2000,静息运动阈值为90%,同时进行常规物理治疗。C 组 "接受 CE 和 PT 治疗。D 组 "接受高频经颅磁刺激、CE 和 PT 治疗。结果。在 Fugl-Meyer 量表中,"A "组和 "C "组(P = 0.01)、"A "组和 "D "组(P = 0.02)以及 "B "组和 "C "组(P = 0.01)之间存在显著差异。在箱块试验中,"A "和 "B "组(P = 0.01)、"A "和 "C "组(P < 0.001)、"B "和 "D "组(P = 0.001)以及 "B "和 "C "组(P = 0.01)之间存在显著差异。在握力方面,"A "组和 "B "组(P = 0.01)以及 "A "组和 "C "组(P = 0.02)之间存在统计学差异。结论。建议临床医生根据预期目标选择治疗方法。当目标是改善上肢功能时,CE+PT 可能比高频经颅磁刺激+PT 更有效。此外,在改善握力方面,CE+PT 和 HF-rTMS+PT 比 CE+HF-rTMS+PT 更有效。因此,将几种方法结合起来并不一定会带来更好的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Stroke Research and Treatment
Stroke Research and Treatment PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信