间歇性θ波爆发刺激与高频重复经颅磁刺激治疗脊髓损伤相关神经性疼痛的比较:一项假对照研究。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-20 DOI:10.1080/10790268.2023.2277964
Jong Keun Kim, JaeIn You, Sangpil Son, InHyuk Suh, Jong Youb Lim
{"title":"间歇性θ波爆发刺激与高频重复经颅磁刺激治疗脊髓损伤相关神经性疼痛的比较:一项假对照研究。","authors":"Jong Keun Kim, JaeIn You, Sangpil Son, InHyuk Suh, Jong Youb Lim","doi":"10.1080/10790268.2023.2277964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain with sham controls, using neuropathic pain-specific evaluation tools.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Rehabilitation medicine department of a university hospital.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Thirty-three patients with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (real iTBS, real rTMS, and sham rTMS). Each patient underwent five sessions of assigned stimulation.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Before and after completion of the five sessions, patients were evaluated using the self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, Numeric Rating Scale, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and Neuropathic Pain Scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Real iTBS and real rTMS reduced pain levels after stimulation according to all the evaluation tools, and the changes were significant when compared to the values of the sham rTMS group. No significant differences were found between the real iTBS and real rTMS groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both iTBS and rTMS were effective in reducing spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain. When safety, convenience, and compliance are considered, iTBS would have an advantage over rTMS in clinical situations with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.<b>Trial Registration:</b> This trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (registration no. KCT0004976).</p>","PeriodicalId":50044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"241-247"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11864029/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of intermittent theta burst stimulation and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain: A sham-controlled study.\",\"authors\":\"Jong Keun Kim, JaeIn You, Sangpil Son, InHyuk Suh, Jong Youb Lim\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10790268.2023.2277964\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain with sham controls, using neuropathic pain-specific evaluation tools.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Rehabilitation medicine department of a university hospital.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Thirty-three patients with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (real iTBS, real rTMS, and sham rTMS). Each patient underwent five sessions of assigned stimulation.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Before and after completion of the five sessions, patients were evaluated using the self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, Numeric Rating Scale, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and Neuropathic Pain Scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Real iTBS and real rTMS reduced pain levels after stimulation according to all the evaluation tools, and the changes were significant when compared to the values of the sham rTMS group. No significant differences were found between the real iTBS and real rTMS groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both iTBS and rTMS were effective in reducing spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain. When safety, convenience, and compliance are considered, iTBS would have an advantage over rTMS in clinical situations with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.<b>Trial Registration:</b> This trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (registration no. KCT0004976).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50044,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"241-247\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11864029/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2023.2277964\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2023.2277964","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:利用神经性疼痛特异性评估工具,比较间歇性θ波爆发刺激(iTBS)和高频重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)对脊髓损伤相关神经性疼痛的影响。设计:随机、双盲、假对照试验。单位:某大学附属医院康复医学科。研究对象:33例脊髓损伤相关神经性疼痛患者。干预措施:患者被随机分配到三组(真正的iTBS,真正的rTMS和假rTMS)中的一组。每位患者接受了五次指定的刺激。结果测量:在五个疗程完成之前和之后,使用自行完成的利兹神经性症状和体征评估、数值评定量表、神经性疼痛症状量表和神经性疼痛量表对患者进行评估。结果:根据所有评估工具,真实iTBS和真实rTMS刺激后疼痛水平均有所降低,且与假rTMS组相比变化显著。真实iTBS组和真实rTMS组之间无显著差异。结论:iTBS和rTMS均能有效减轻脊髓损伤相关性神经性疼痛。当考虑到安全性、便利性和依从性时,在脊髓损伤相关神经性疼痛的临床情况下,iTBS比rTMS更有优势。试验注册:本试验在临床研究信息服务注册(注册号:。KCT0004976)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of intermittent theta burst stimulation and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain: A sham-controlled study.

Objective: To compare the effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain with sham controls, using neuropathic pain-specific evaluation tools.

Design: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.

Setting: Rehabilitation medicine department of a university hospital.

Participants: Thirty-three patients with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.

Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (real iTBS, real rTMS, and sham rTMS). Each patient underwent five sessions of assigned stimulation.

Outcome measures: Before and after completion of the five sessions, patients were evaluated using the self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, Numeric Rating Scale, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and Neuropathic Pain Scale.

Results: Real iTBS and real rTMS reduced pain levels after stimulation according to all the evaluation tools, and the changes were significant when compared to the values of the sham rTMS group. No significant differences were found between the real iTBS and real rTMS groups.

Conclusion: Both iTBS and rTMS were effective in reducing spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain. When safety, convenience, and compliance are considered, iTBS would have an advantage over rTMS in clinical situations with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.Trial Registration: This trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (registration no. KCT0004976).

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
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: For more than three decades, The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine has reflected the evolution of the field of spinal cord medicine. From its inception as a newsletter for physicians striving to provide the best of care, JSCM has matured into an international journal that serves professionals from all disciplines—medicine, nursing, therapy, engineering, psychology and social work.
×
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