Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT02779218
NCT02779218
Completed
Not Applicable

Study of the Effects of the Combination of Motor Imagery Exercises and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) Type PAS in Patients After Hemiplegic Stroke

University Hospital, Toulouse1 site in 1 country24 target enrollmentJanuary 2013
ConditionsStroke

Overview

Phase
Not Applicable
Intervention
Not specified
Conditions
Stroke
Sponsor
University Hospital, Toulouse
Enrollment
24
Locations
1
Primary Endpoint
Effect of a reeducation session as assessed by amplitude of motor evoked potential
Status
Completed
Last Updated
5 years ago

Overview

Brief Summary

Strokes represent, in industrialized countries the leading cause of acquired motor disability in adults older than 40. Stroke is responsible for France from 150 000 to 200 000 new cases of hemiplegia each year. These patients will see their deficit to improve during the first 6 months after stroke. This recovery is largely based on brain plasticity mechanisms and the rehabilitation has as main objective to optimize these mechanisms. However, only 20% of patients hospitalized in a rehabilitation sector recover a functional upper limb. This lack of functionality is not only due to overall strength gap but also to the predominance of this gap on the extension movements of the wrist and fingers.

Meanwhile, work on brain plasticity helped develop new techniques of non-invasive brain stimulation (Non-invasive Brain Stimulation, NIBS) as the model of coupled stimulations (Paired Associative Stimulation, PAS) for modulating way over effective brain plasticity. In previous studies, the investigators have shown over a 30 minutes session lasting facilitation (60mn) and specific motor evoked potential (MEP) of the Extensor Carpi Radialis (ECR). Several studies showed an adjuvant effect when GSIN were associated with learning of a motor task. For PAS, some studies have shown a greater facilitation when the latter is associated with muscle contraction.

The motor imagery (MI) is imagining a movement without realizing it, it is based on mechanisms similar to those of the real movement. This technique also showed its effects as an adjuvant therapy in hemiplegic patients, however, they remain lower than those obtained after a motor drive. Its use in patients with no motor makes its uniqueness and strength.

Registry
clinicaltrials.gov
Start Date
January 2013
End Date
February 2018
Last Updated
5 years ago
Study Type
Interventional
Study Design
Crossover
Sex
All

Investigators

Responsible Party
Sponsor

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • 18-85 years
  • Patients who have experienced a Stroke of more than one month
  • Deficit out of the upper limb (Fugl Meyer member sup \<50/66)
  • Presence of ECR muscle MEP
  • Able to carry the motor imagery according to a test by measuring chronometer
  • Patient who signed informed consent
  • Subject affiliated to the social security system

Exclusion Criteria

  • history of epilepsy or seizure
  • MEP Lack of ECR
  • Presence of a cons-indication for use of magnetic stimulation or MRI:
  • Surgical Clips, metal sutures, staples, stent
  • Osteosynthesis devices on the head or neck
  • Pacemaker
  • Implanted hearing aid
  • Ocular foreign body, shrapnel, bullets
  • Metal Worker
  • Heart Valve, endovascular equipment

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Effect of a reeducation session as assessed by amplitude of motor evoked potential

Time Frame: Week 3

25 minutes after stimulation

Secondary Outcomes

  • Resting Motor Threshold as assessed by minimal intensity to evoke a motor evoked potential(Week 3)
  • Active Motor Threshold as assessed by minimal intensity to evoke a motor evoked potential(Week 3)
  • Intensity curve as assessed by variation of intensity of motor evoked potential(Week 3)
  • Motricity of upper limb recovering as assessed by Fugl Meyer Score(Week 3)
  • Asymmetry index as assessed by resonance magnetic imaging(Day 1)

Study Sites (1)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials