短暂的亚运动阈值电刺激同步应用于腕屈肌和伸肌不能抑制特发性震颤,独立于刺激频率。

IF 2.5 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Christian Metzner, Adam Stringham, Brenna Hislop, Joseph Bonham, Larrisa Chatterton, Ryan DeFigueiredo, Steven K Charles
{"title":"短暂的亚运动阈值电刺激同步应用于腕屈肌和伸肌不能抑制特发性震颤,独立于刺激频率。","authors":"Christian Metzner,&nbsp;Adam Stringham,&nbsp;Brenna Hislop,&nbsp;Joseph Bonham,&nbsp;Larrisa Chatterton,&nbsp;Ryan DeFigueiredo,&nbsp;Steven K Charles","doi":"10.5334/tohm.740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electrical stimulation of muscles below motoneuron threshold has shown potential as a low-cost and minimally invasive treatment for Essential Tremor (ET). Prior studies have stimulated wrist flexor and extensor muscles synchronously with diverging results, calling for further investigation. Also, prior studies have only used a narrow range of stimulation parameters, so stimulation parameters have not been optimized. Our purpose was to further investigate synchronous submotor stimulation and identify the effect of stimulation frequency on tremor suppression.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We quantified the effect of brief, synchronous stimulation at 15 different frequencies from 10-150 Hz applied over wrist flexors and extensors on both tremor power and frequency in 20 ET patients. We compared tremor power and frequency from hand acceleration and sEMG between pre-, per-, and post-stimulation phases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our stimulation paradigm did not result in significant tremor suppression or tremor frequency changes at any tested stimulation frequency, showing no significant interaction between phase and stimulation frequency for tremor power measured by either hand acceleration (p = 0.69) or sEMG (p = 0.07). Additionally, the effect of phase interacting with stimulation frequency on tremor frequency was statistically insignificant for acceleration (p = 0.64) and sEMG (p = 0.37).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We conclude that brief synchronous submotor-threshold stimulation does not reduce tremor in ET patients, independent of stimulation frequency (from 10 to 150 Hz). Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that brief submotor-threshold stimulation suppresses tremor via reciprocal inhibition, which requires asynchronous stimulation. In contrast, it is hypothesized that synchronous stimulation might require longer stimulation durations to affect supraspinal tremor networks.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>We studied the effects of synchronous submotor electrical stimulation over wrist flexor and extensor muscles on Essential Tremor. Our results indicate that suppressing tremor with brief synchronous stimulation is ineffective. Based on recently hypothesized mechanisms of peripheral tremor suppression, we hypothesize that asynchronous stimulation or long-duration synchronous stimulation are more effective approaches to peripheral tremor suppression.</p>","PeriodicalId":23317,"journal":{"name":"Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10473161/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brief Submotor-Threshold Electrical Stimulation Applied Synchronously Over Wrist Flexor and Extensor Muscles does Not Suppress Essential Tremor, Independent of Stimulation Frequency.\",\"authors\":\"Christian Metzner,&nbsp;Adam Stringham,&nbsp;Brenna Hislop,&nbsp;Joseph Bonham,&nbsp;Larrisa Chatterton,&nbsp;Ryan DeFigueiredo,&nbsp;Steven K Charles\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/tohm.740\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electrical stimulation of muscles below motoneuron threshold has shown potential as a low-cost and minimally invasive treatment for Essential Tremor (ET). Prior studies have stimulated wrist flexor and extensor muscles synchronously with diverging results, calling for further investigation. Also, prior studies have only used a narrow range of stimulation parameters, so stimulation parameters have not been optimized. Our purpose was to further investigate synchronous submotor stimulation and identify the effect of stimulation frequency on tremor suppression.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We quantified the effect of brief, synchronous stimulation at 15 different frequencies from 10-150 Hz applied over wrist flexors and extensors on both tremor power and frequency in 20 ET patients. We compared tremor power and frequency from hand acceleration and sEMG between pre-, per-, and post-stimulation phases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our stimulation paradigm did not result in significant tremor suppression or tremor frequency changes at any tested stimulation frequency, showing no significant interaction between phase and stimulation frequency for tremor power measured by either hand acceleration (p = 0.69) or sEMG (p = 0.07). Additionally, the effect of phase interacting with stimulation frequency on tremor frequency was statistically insignificant for acceleration (p = 0.64) and sEMG (p = 0.37).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We conclude that brief synchronous submotor-threshold stimulation does not reduce tremor in ET patients, independent of stimulation frequency (from 10 to 150 Hz). Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that brief submotor-threshold stimulation suppresses tremor via reciprocal inhibition, which requires asynchronous stimulation. In contrast, it is hypothesized that synchronous stimulation might require longer stimulation durations to affect supraspinal tremor networks.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>We studied the effects of synchronous submotor electrical stimulation over wrist flexor and extensor muscles on Essential Tremor. Our results indicate that suppressing tremor with brief synchronous stimulation is ineffective. Based on recently hypothesized mechanisms of peripheral tremor suppression, we hypothesize that asynchronous stimulation or long-duration synchronous stimulation are more effective approaches to peripheral tremor suppression.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10473161/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/tohm.740\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/tohm.740","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对低于运动神经元阈值的肌肉进行电刺激已显示出治疗特发性震颤(ET)的低成本和微创治疗的潜力。先前的研究同步刺激腕屈肌和伸肌,但结果不一致,需要进一步研究。此外,之前的研究只使用了很窄的增产参数范围,因此没有对增产参数进行优化。我们的目的是进一步研究同步亚运动刺激,并确定刺激频率对震颤抑制的影响。方法:我们量化了20例ET患者腕屈肌和伸肌在10- 150hz范围内的15种不同频率的短暂同步刺激对震颤功率和频率的影响。我们比较了刺激前、刺激中和刺激后的手加速和表面肌电信号的震颤功率和频率。结果:我们的刺激模式在任何测试的刺激频率下都没有导致显著的震颤抑制或震颤频率变化,表明通过手加速度(p = 0.69)或肌电图(p = 0.07)测量的震颤功率在相位和刺激频率之间没有显著的相互作用。此外,在加速度(p = 0.64)和肌电图(p = 0.37)上,相位与刺激频率相互作用对震颤频率的影响无统计学意义(p = 0.64)。讨论:我们得出结论,短暂的同步亚运动阈值刺激不能减少ET患者的震颤,与刺激频率无关(从10到150 Hz)。我们的结果与假设一致,即短暂的亚运动阈值刺激通过相互抑制抑制震颤,这需要异步刺激。相反,假设同步刺激可能需要更长的刺激持续时间来影响椎上震颤网络。重点:我们研究了同步亚运动电刺激腕屈肌和伸肌对特发性震颤的影响。我们的研究结果表明,用短暂的同步刺激抑制震颤是无效的。基于最近对外周震颤抑制机制的假设,我们假设异步刺激或长时间同步刺激是更有效的外周震颤抑制方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Brief Submotor-Threshold Electrical Stimulation Applied Synchronously Over Wrist Flexor and Extensor Muscles does Not Suppress Essential Tremor, Independent of Stimulation Frequency.

Brief Submotor-Threshold Electrical Stimulation Applied Synchronously Over Wrist Flexor and Extensor Muscles does Not Suppress Essential Tremor, Independent of Stimulation Frequency.

Brief Submotor-Threshold Electrical Stimulation Applied Synchronously Over Wrist Flexor and Extensor Muscles does Not Suppress Essential Tremor, Independent of Stimulation Frequency.

Brief Submotor-Threshold Electrical Stimulation Applied Synchronously Over Wrist Flexor and Extensor Muscles does Not Suppress Essential Tremor, Independent of Stimulation Frequency.

Background: Electrical stimulation of muscles below motoneuron threshold has shown potential as a low-cost and minimally invasive treatment for Essential Tremor (ET). Prior studies have stimulated wrist flexor and extensor muscles synchronously with diverging results, calling for further investigation. Also, prior studies have only used a narrow range of stimulation parameters, so stimulation parameters have not been optimized. Our purpose was to further investigate synchronous submotor stimulation and identify the effect of stimulation frequency on tremor suppression.

Methods: We quantified the effect of brief, synchronous stimulation at 15 different frequencies from 10-150 Hz applied over wrist flexors and extensors on both tremor power and frequency in 20 ET patients. We compared tremor power and frequency from hand acceleration and sEMG between pre-, per-, and post-stimulation phases.

Results: Our stimulation paradigm did not result in significant tremor suppression or tremor frequency changes at any tested stimulation frequency, showing no significant interaction between phase and stimulation frequency for tremor power measured by either hand acceleration (p = 0.69) or sEMG (p = 0.07). Additionally, the effect of phase interacting with stimulation frequency on tremor frequency was statistically insignificant for acceleration (p = 0.64) and sEMG (p = 0.37).

Discussion: We conclude that brief synchronous submotor-threshold stimulation does not reduce tremor in ET patients, independent of stimulation frequency (from 10 to 150 Hz). Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that brief submotor-threshold stimulation suppresses tremor via reciprocal inhibition, which requires asynchronous stimulation. In contrast, it is hypothesized that synchronous stimulation might require longer stimulation durations to affect supraspinal tremor networks.

Highlights: We studied the effects of synchronous submotor electrical stimulation over wrist flexor and extensor muscles on Essential Tremor. Our results indicate that suppressing tremor with brief synchronous stimulation is ineffective. Based on recently hypothesized mechanisms of peripheral tremor suppression, we hypothesize that asynchronous stimulation or long-duration synchronous stimulation are more effective approaches to peripheral tremor suppression.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.50%
发文量
31
审稿时长
6 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