ABSTRACT
Background: We investigated whether transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) and sensory stimulation (SS) could promote upper limb recovery in participants with subacute stroke. Methods: Participants were randomized into four groups: rTMS/Sham SS, Sham rTMS/SS, rTMS/SS, and control group (Sham rTMS/Sham SS). Participants underwent ten sessions of sham or active rTMS over S1 (10 Hz, 1,500 pulses, 120% of resting motor threshold, 20 min), followed by sham or active SS. The SS involved active sensory training (exploring features of objects and graphesthesia, proprioception exercises), mirror therapy, and Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in the region of the median nerve in the wrist (stimulation intensity as the minimum intensity at which the participants reported paresthesia; five electrical pulses of 1 ms duration each at 10 Hz were delivered every second over 45 min). Sham stimulations occurred as follows: Sham rTMS, coil was held while disconnected from the stimulator, and rTMS noise was presented with computer loudspeakers with recorded sound from a real stimulation. The Sham SS received therapy in the unaffected upper limb, did not use the mirror and received TENS stimulation for only 60 seconds. The primary outcome was the Body Structure/Function: Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and Nottingham Sensory Assessment (NSA); the secondary outcome was the Activity/Participation domains, assessed with Box and Block Test, Motor Activity Log scale, Jebsen-Taylor Test, and Functional Independence Measure. Results: Forty participants with stroke ischemic (n = 38) and hemorrhagic (n = 2), men (n = 19) and women (n = 21), in the subacute stage (10.6 ± 6 weeks) had a mean age of 62.2 ± 9.6 years, were equally divided into four groups (10 participants in each group). Significant somatosensory improvements were found in participants receiving active rTMS and active SS, compared with those in the control group (sham rTMS with sham SS). Motor function improved only in participants who received active rTMS, with greater effects when active rTMS was combined with active SS. Conclusion: The combined use of SS with rTMS over S1 represents a more effective therapy for increasing sensory and motor recovery, as well as functional independence, in participants with subacute stroke. Clinical Trial Registration: [clinicaltrials.gov], identifier [NCT03329807].
ABSTRACT
Background: The ability to produce coordinated movement is dependent on dynamic interactions through transcallosal fibers between the two cerebral hemispheres of the brain. Although typically unilateral, stroke induces changes in functional and effective connectivity across hemispheres, which are related to sensorimotor impairment and stroke recovery. Previous studies have focused almost exclusively on interhemispheric interactions in the primary motor cortex (M1). Objective: To identify the presence of interhemispheric asymmetry (ASY) of somatosensory cortex (S1) excitability and to investigate whether S1 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with sensory stimulation (SS) changes excitability in S1 and M1, as well as S1 ASY, in individuals with subacute stroke. Methods: A randomized clinical trial. Participants with a single episode of stroke, in the subacute phase, between 35 and 75 years old, were allocated, randomly and equally balanced, to four groups: rTMS/sham SS, sham rTMS/SS, rTMS/SS, and sham rTMS/Sham SS. Participants underwent 10 sessions of S1 rTMS of the lesioned hemisphere (10 Hz, 1,500 pulses) followed by SS. SS was applied to the paretic upper limb (UL) (active SS) or non-paretic UL (sham SS). TMS-induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs) of the paretic UL and somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) of both ULs assessed M1 and S1 cortical excitability, respectively. The S1 ASY index was measured before and after intervention. Evaluator, participants and the statistician were blinded. Results: Thirty-six participants divided equally into groups (nine participants per group). Seven patients were excluded from MEP analysis because of failure to produce consistent MEP. One participant was excluded in the SSEP analysis because no SSEP was detected. All somatosensory stimulation groups had decreased S1 ASY except for the sham rTMS/Sham SS group. When compared with baseline, M1 excitability increased only in the rTMS/SS group. Conclusion: S1 rTMS and SS alone or in combination changed S1 excitability and decreased ASY, but it was only their combination that increased M1 excitability. Clinical trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (NCT03329807).
