scholarly journals Comparison of TMS-induced arm activation and upper limb functional tests in hemiparetic stroke

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-47
Author(s):  
Ina Tarkka

Stroke has a major impact in the total cost of healthcare in the Western world as stroke is the most common cause of long-term disability [1]. In attempts to enhance motor recovery after stroke effective treatment strategies have been developed in recent years. Appropriate evaluation of the intervention programs requires comprehensive and accurate assessment of the residual abnormal function. In the present study we compare two well-known clinical functional scoring tests developed for the assessment of hemiparetic upper limb function due to stroke and navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS), which measures involuntary target muscle response to cortical stimulation. The aim is to investigate the equivalence of these methods and thus add objective evidence of the limb function to strengthen evidence-based practice. In addition to functional tests, four muscles of both arms were studied in twenty chronic stroke patients. Those patients without motor evoked potentials (MEP) to nTMS in the affected upper limb had significantly lower total score in Action Research Arm Test and Wolf Motor Function Test and longer performance time than those patients with MEP. Patients, in whom MEP in each of the four target muscles was elicitable, had better than average scores in clinical functional tests while patients, in whom no MEP was elicitable in any target muscle, had worse than average scores. Transcranial magnetic stimulation adds crucial information when clinical assessment based on voluntary activation by command is challenging, e.g. in patients suffering from cognitive deficits.

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. 682-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurits H. J. Hoonhorst ◽  
Rinske H. M. Nijland ◽  
Peter J. S. van den Berg ◽  
Cornelis H. Emmelot ◽  
Boudewijn J. Kollen ◽  
...  

Background. The added prognostic value of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-induced motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) to clinical modeling for the upper limb is still unknown early poststroke. Objective. To determine the added prognostic value of TMS of the adductor digiti minimi (TMS-ADM) to the clinical model based on voluntary shoulder abduction (SA) and finger extension (FE) during the first 48 hours and at 11 days after stroke. Methods. This was a prospective cohort study with 3 logistic regression models, developed to predict upper-limb function at 6 months poststroke. The first model showed the predictive value of SA and FE measured within 48 hours and at 11 days poststroke. The second model included TMS-ADM, whereas the third model combined clinical and TMS-ADM information. Differences between derived models were tested with receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. Results. A total of 51 patients with severe, first-ever ischemic stroke were included. Within 48 hours, no significant added value of TMS-ADM to clinical modeling was found ( P = .369). Both models suffered from a relatively low negative predictive value within 48 hours poststroke. TMS-ADM combined with SA and FE (SAFE) showed significantly more accuracy than TMS-ADM alone at 11 days poststroke ( P = .039). Conclusion. TMS-ADM showed no added value to clinical modeling when measured within first 48 hours poststroke, whereas optimal prediction is achieved by SAFE combined with TMS-ADM at 11 days poststroke. Our findings suggest that accuracy of predicting upper-limb motor function by TMS-ADM is mainly determined by the time of assessment early after stroke onset.


Author(s):  
James Louis Nuzzo ◽  
David S. Kennedy ◽  
Harrison T. Finn ◽  
Janet Louise Taylor

We examined if transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a valid tool for assessment of voluntary activation of the knee extensors in healthy individuals. Maximal M-waves (Mmax) of vastus lateralis (VL) were evoked with electrical stimulation of femoral nerve (FNS); Mmax of medial hamstrings (HS) was evoked with electrical stimulation of sciatic nerve branches; motor evoked potentials (MEPs) of VL and HS were evoked with TMS; superimposed twitches (SIT) of knee extensors were evoked with FNS and TMS. In Study 1, TMS intensity (69% output(SD 5)) was optimized for MEP sizes, but guidelines for test validity could not be met. Agonist VL MEPs were too small (51.4% Mmax(SD 11.9); guideline ≥70% Mmax) and antagonist HS MEPs were too big (16.5% Mmax(SD 10.3); guideline <10% Mmax). Consequently, the TMS estimated resting twitch (99.1 N(SD 37.2)) and FNS resting twitch (142.4 N(SD 41.8)) were different. In Study 2, SITs at 90% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) were similar between TMS (16.1 N(SD 10.3)) and FNS (20.9 N(SD 16.7)), when TMS intensity was optimized for this purpose, suggesting a procedure that combines TMS SITs with FNS resting twitches could be valid. In Study 3, which tested the TMS intensity (56% output(SD 18)) that evoked the largest SIT at 90%MVC, voluntary activation from TMS (87.3%(SD 7.1)) and FNS (84.5%(SD 7.6)) were different. In sum, the contemporary procedure for TMS-based voluntary activation of the knee extensors is invalid. A modified procedure improves validity, but only in individuals who meet rigorous inclusion criteria for SITs and MEPs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document