The Combining rTMS With Visual Feedback Training for Patients With Stroke

Sponsor
Taipei Medical University Hospital (Other)
Overall Status
Completed
CT.gov ID
NCT03689491
Collaborator
(none)
30
1
3
53.5
0.6

Study Details

Study Description

Brief Summary

After stroke, patients often experience motor deficits that interrupt normal lower extremity movement and gait function. Recent developments in neuroimaging have focus on the reasons why some patients recover well while some do poorly. However, there is still no consensus on the exact mechanisms involved in regaining the functions after rehabilitation. Application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to facilitate neural plasticity during stroke treatment has recently gained considerable attention. The possible mechanism through which rTMS acts is based on the interhemispheric competition (IHC) model, which explains that patients with stroke experience alterations in cortical excitability and exhibit abnormally high interhemispheric inhibition from the unaffected hemisphere to the affected hemisphere. The visual feedback training can improve postural control and enhance motor performance. Several rTMS studies have evaluated the lower extremity dysfunction following stroke, but few studies have explored the efficacy of applying rTMS on the lower extremities. We expect the study can help us to further exploration of the change of clinical function and cortical excitability following rTMS and visual feedback training in subjects with stroke. In addition, the results of this project will be provided for further rehabilitation programs in people with stroke.

Condition or Disease Intervention/Treatment Phase
  • Behavioral: rTMS
  • Behavioral: visual feedback training
  • Behavioral: traditional rehabilitation
N/A

Detailed Description

Objective: To investigate the effects of combining rTMS with visual feedback training to improve movements in the paretic lower limb and gait performance.

Methods: Thirty patients with monohemispheric after ischemic stroke will recruited and randomized into 3 groups. The group 1 received a 10-minute rTMS intervention then a 30-minute visual feedback training. The group 2 received a 10-minute sham rTMS intervention then a 30-minute visual feedback training. The group 3 received a 10-minute sham rTMS intervention then a 30-minute traditional rehabilitation training. All subjects received treatments 3 times a week for 4 weeks. The performance was assessed by a blinded assessor for two times (baseline and after 4 weeks). The outcome measures included Motor evoked potential (MEP), Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Lower Limb section(FMA-LE),Motor Assessment Score(MAS), Berg Balance Test (BBS),Time Up and Go (TUG), and Modified Barthel Index for ADL ability. Collected data will be analyzed with ANOVA test by SPSS version 20.0, and alpha level was set at 0.05. The hypothesis is combining rTMS with visual feedback training has positive effects on lower limb and gait performance among patients with stroke.

Study Design

Study Type:
Interventional
Actual Enrollment :
30 participants
Allocation:
Randomized
Intervention Model:
Parallel Assignment
Intervention Model Description:
RandomizedRandomized
Masking:
Single (Outcomes Assessor)
Masking Description:
Single Blind (Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose:
Treatment
Official Title:
Investigating the Effects of Combining rTMS With Visual Feedback Training to Improve Movements in the Paretic Lower Limb and Gait Performance
Actual Study Start Date :
Feb 13, 2015
Actual Primary Completion Date :
Jun 30, 2019
Actual Study Completion Date :
Jul 31, 2019

Arms and Interventions

Arm Intervention/Treatment
Experimental: rTMS+visual feedback

10-minute rTMS and then a 30-minute visual feedback training ,3 times a week, for 4 weeks

Behavioral: rTMS
The EMG measured the MEPs of the anterior tibialis in response to the TMS delivered using a Magstim Rapid2 stimulator (Magstim Co, Ltd, Carmarthenshire, Wales, UK) with a 70-mm figure-8 coil (maximum power, 2.2 T) over the contralateral M1. The intensity was initially set at 100% of the machine output (MO) to determine the optimal stimulation site (hotspot). The hotspot was marked on the scalp with oil ink and recorded as x, y, in centimeters from the vertex (cz). The participants received real rTMS or sham rTMS, respectively (1 Hz, 10 min), which was before a 30-minute visual feedback training and/or traditional rehabilitation training.

Behavioral: visual feedback training
Game-based visual feedback training system and software.The system was designed to enable the subjects to perform ankle movements in multiple axes.

Active Comparator: sham rTMS+visual feedback

10-minute sham rTMS and then a 30-minute visual feedback training ,3 times a week, for 4 weeks

Behavioral: rTMS
The EMG measured the MEPs of the anterior tibialis in response to the TMS delivered using a Magstim Rapid2 stimulator (Magstim Co, Ltd, Carmarthenshire, Wales, UK) with a 70-mm figure-8 coil (maximum power, 2.2 T) over the contralateral M1. The intensity was initially set at 100% of the machine output (MO) to determine the optimal stimulation site (hotspot). The hotspot was marked on the scalp with oil ink and recorded as x, y, in centimeters from the vertex (cz). The participants received real rTMS or sham rTMS, respectively (1 Hz, 10 min), which was before a 30-minute visual feedback training and/or traditional rehabilitation training.

Behavioral: visual feedback training
Game-based visual feedback training system and software.The system was designed to enable the subjects to perform ankle movements in multiple axes.

Active Comparator: sham rTMS+traditional training

10-minute sham rTMS and then a 30-minute traditional rehabilitation training,3 times a week, for 4 weeks

Behavioral: rTMS
The EMG measured the MEPs of the anterior tibialis in response to the TMS delivered using a Magstim Rapid2 stimulator (Magstim Co, Ltd, Carmarthenshire, Wales, UK) with a 70-mm figure-8 coil (maximum power, 2.2 T) over the contralateral M1. The intensity was initially set at 100% of the machine output (MO) to determine the optimal stimulation site (hotspot). The hotspot was marked on the scalp with oil ink and recorded as x, y, in centimeters from the vertex (cz). The participants received real rTMS or sham rTMS, respectively (1 Hz, 10 min), which was before a 30-minute visual feedback training and/or traditional rehabilitation training.

Behavioral: traditional rehabilitation
30 min traditional rehabilitation. The traditional rehabilitation programs included balance training, postural training, muscle strengthening, ambulation training and etc..

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

  1. Change of Motor evoked potential [Change from baseline to 4 weeks]

    Measurement of motor evoked potential of anterior tibialis

Secondary Outcome Measures

  1. Chang of Motor Assessment Score [Change from baseline to 4 weeks]

    Lower Limb motor function

  2. Chang of Berg Balance Test [Change from baseline to 4 weeks]

    standing balance

  3. Chang of Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Lower Limb section [Change from baseline to 4 weeks]

    Lower Limb section

  4. Chang of Modified barthel index [Change from baseline to 4 weeks]

    Activity of daily live ability

  5. Chang of Time Up and Go [Change from baseline to 4 weeks]

    functional ambulation

Eligibility Criteria

Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study:
20 Years to 80 Years
Sexes Eligible for Study:
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
No
Inclusion Criteria:
  1. Monohemispheric ischemic or hemorrhage stroke

  2. Subjects with first-ever stroke 3.6 months after stroke onset

4.The Brunnstrom stage of lower limb >Ⅲ 5.>23 in the mini-mental state exam 6.The Modified Ashworth Scale of lower limb <3 7.Clear consciousness can meet the relevant assessments

Exclusion Criteria:
  1. Recurrent stoke

  2. Severe spasticity of lower limb and difficult to perform isolative movement.

  3. History of seizures or epileptic

  4. Have implanted ferromagnetic devices or other magnetic-sensitive metal implants

  5. Concomitant vestibular and cerebellum diseases

  6. Joint contracture of lower limb/foot and other orthopedic problems

  7. Subjects with severe cognitive impairment

  8. Subjects with depression and/or mood disorder

  9. Presence of any comorbid neurological diseases or psychological diseases

Contacts and Locations

Locations

Site City State Country Postal Code
1 Taipei Medical University Hospital Taipei Taiwan

Sponsors and Collaborators

  • Taipei Medical University Hospital

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Cheng Hsien-Lin, Master, Taipei Medical University Hospital

Study Documents (Full-Text)

None provided.

More Information

Publications

None provided.
Responsible Party:
Taipei Medical University Hospital
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT03689491
Other Study ID Numbers:
  • 105TMU-TMUH-14
First Posted:
Sep 28, 2018
Last Update Posted:
Sep 11, 2019
Last Verified:
Sep 1, 2018
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
No
Plan to Share IPD:
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product:
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product:
No
Keywords provided by Taipei Medical University Hospital
Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Study Results

No Results Posted as of Sep 11, 2019