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.
Lower limb exoskeleton rehabilitation robots are used to improve or restore the walking and movement ability of people with lower limb movement disorders. However, the required functions for patients differ based on various diseases. For example, patients with weak muscle strength require power assistance, patients with spinal cord injuries require motion compensation, patients with gait abnormalities require gait correction, and patients with strokes require neural rehabilitation. To design a more targeted lower limb exoskeleton rehabilitation robot for different diseases, this article summarised and compared existing lower limb exoskeleton rehabilitation robots according to their main functions and the characteristics and rehabilitation needs of various lower limb movement disorders. The correlations between the functions of existing devices and diseases were summarised to provide certain references for the development of new lower limb exoskeleton rehabilitation robots.