Stroke is one of the most health-threatening diseases in the world, with high incidence and high morbidity. Despite the development of stroke therapy and improved systems to recognize stroke symptoms and deliver care promptly, only a minority of patients with acute stroke receive thrombolytic therapy, and many of them remain with residual functional deficits. Thus, the need for effective stroke rehabilitation is likely to remain an essential part of the continuum of stroke care for the foreseeable future. This review summarizes and analyzes the results of literatures on stroke rehabilitation in recent years, briefly describes the rehabilitation techniques and progress in dyskinesia, speech barrier, dysphagia, emotional disorder and spasticity after stroke, to provide some references for the optimization of rehabilitation treatment.
ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy of transcranial combined with peripheral repetitive magnetic stimulation on motor dysfunction after stroke.MethodsA total of 40 patients after stroke who were hospitalized in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University between January and December 2019 were selected. The patients were divided into the trial group and the control group by random number table method, with 20 cases in each group. Both groups received conventional rehabilitation and medicine treatment, on that basis, the trial group received repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS), while the control group received rTMS combined with fake rPMS, both lasted for 2 weeks. Before treatment and 2, 4, 12 weeks after the initiation of treatment, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) [including FMA-Upper Limb (FMA-UL), FMA-Lower Limb (FMA-LL)], National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and Modified Barthel Index (MBI) were used to evaluate the efficacy of rTMS combined with rPMS.ResultsFive patients fell off, and 35 patients were finally included, including 18 in the trial group and 17 in the control group. No adverse reaction occurred during the study. Before treatment, there was no significant difference in FMA, FMA-UL, FMA-LL, NIHSS or MBI scores between the two groups (P>0.05). After treatment, the FMA score of the trial group changed from 36.44±28.59 to 75.56±19.94, and that of the control group changed from 39.05±29.85 to 54.64±23.25; the between-group difference was statistically significant at the end of the 4th and 12th weeks (P<0.05). The FMA-UL score of the trial group changed from 21.39±22.14 to 46.94±15.84, and that of the control group changed from 20.82±20.47 to 31.29±16.98; the between-group difference was statistically significant at the end of the 4th and 12th weeks (P<0.05). The FMA-LL score of the trial group changed from 15.06±9.10 to 28.61±5.69, and that of the control group changed from 18.23±10.33 to 23.35±8.20; the between-group difference was statistically significant at the end of the 12th week (P>0.05). The NIHSS score of the trial group changed from 6.83±4.54 to 2.78±2.05, and that of the control group changed from 6.35±3.67 to 3.94±2.56; the MBI score of the trial group changed from 53.33±17.90 to 83.06±12.50, and that of the control group changed from 60.88±25.45 to 78.82±15.67; there was no statistically significant difference in NIHSS or MBI between the two groups at any timepoint (P>0.05). Except for the FMA-LL of the control group, the other outcome indicators in each group were significantly different after treatment compared with those before treatment (P<0.05).ConclusionsBoth rTMS and rTMS combined with rPMS can improve the limb motor function and activities of daily living of stroke patients. The treatment mode of rTMS combined with rPMS has better effect on motor dysfunction after stroke, which is of great significance for improving the overall rehabilitation effect.
Objective To observe the effect of transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) on the recovery of upper limb motor function in stroke patients and explore its mechanism. Methods The inpatients with ischemic stroke and hemiplegia admitted to the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University between November 2019 and December 2021were prospectively included. The patients were randomly divided into a true stimulation group and a false stimulation group. All patients received routine medication treatment and rehabilitation training, with a course of 2 weeks. The patients in the true stimulation group also received TUS, and the stimulation site and mode in the false stimulation group were the same as those in the true stimulation group, but the transducer was in a non working mode. The changes in upper limb function and motor cortex electrical activity before and after treatment were compared between two groups of patients. The Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Jebsen Hand Function Test (JHFT), and Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremities (FMA-UE) were used as indicators of upper limb motor function. The motor evoked potential (MEP) latency, resting motor threshold (RMT), cortical silent period (CSP), and central motor conduction time (CMCT) were used as indicators of cortical excitability. Results A total of 30 patients were included, with 15 in the true stimulation group and 15 in the false stimulation group. There was no statistically significant difference in age, gender, course of disease, lesion side, handedness, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score, and Barthel Index between the two groups of patients (P>0.05). Before treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in WMFT score, JHFT time, and FMA-UE score between the two groups of patients (P>0.05). After treatment, the WMFT score and FMA-UE score of both groups of patients increased compared to before treatment within the group, while the JHFT time decreased compared to before treatment within the group (P<0.05). The improvement degree of WMFT score (19.2±8.0 vs. 11.8±5.5), JHFT time [(39.3±20.4) vs. (26.0±15.9) s], and FMA-UE score [14.0 (12.0, 16.0) vs. 8.0 (7.0, 9.0)] before and after treatment in the true stimulation group were better than those in the false stimulation group (P<0.05). Before treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in MEP latency, CSP, CMCT, and RMT between the two groups of patients (P>0.05). After treatment, the MEP latency, CSP, CMCT, and RMT of both groups of patients decreased compared to before treatment within the group (P<0.05). The degree of decrease in CSP [(33.5±12.3) vs. (18.5±5.5) ms], CMCT [3.5 (2.5, 5.8) vs. 1.8 (1.5, 3.4) ms], and RMT [(19.2±12.8)% vs. (8.8±8.7)%] in the true stimulation group before and after treatment were greater than those in the false stimulation group (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the degree of decrease in MEP latency between the two groups before and after treatment (P>0.05). Both groups of patients had no adverse reactions during the treatment period. Conclusion TUS applied to the primary motor cortex can help restore upper limb motor function in stroke patients, and the mechanism of action may be related to TUS enhancing cortical excitability in the affected brain.