Transcranial magnetic stimulation-based closed-loop modality for activity of daily living gain in spinal cord injury: a retrospective study using propensity score matching analysis.

Ying Liu, Bingyu Huang, Guoshu Huang, Zuoli Wu, Shang Xu, Weihao Ye, Ruqiong Wei, Min Li, Jianwen Xu, Ziming Ye
Author Information
  1. Ying Liu: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
  2. Bingyu Huang: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
  3. Guoshu Huang: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
  4. Zuoli Wu: Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
  5. Shang Xu: Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
  6. Weihao Ye: Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
  7. Ruqiong Wei: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
  8. Min Li: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
  9. Jianwen Xu: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
  10. Ziming Ye: Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China - yeziming1005@163.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-based closed-loop (TBCL) modality was seldom recommended for functional restoring following spinal cord injury (SCI), several studies recently came to a positive suggestion.
AIM: To explore the independent factors which influence activity of daily living (ADL) gain, and systematically investigate the efficacy of TBCL for ADL gain.
DESIGN: A retrospective observational study.
SETTING: The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University.
POPULATION: SCI patients with neurological dysfunction.
METHODS: A total of 768 patients who received TBCL (N.=548) or sole rehabilitation (SR, N.=220) were enrolled. Analysis on propensity score matching was also performed. Finally, the cumulative inefficiencies between TBCL and SR within entire patient population, matched-patients as well as subgroup on per SCI clinical characteristics were performed.
RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that thoracolumbar injury, single/double injury, incomplete injury, no neurogenic bladder, no neurogenic intestinal and no respiratory disorder, as well as TBCL strategy were independent positive factors for ADL gain. Meanwhile, TBCL strategy was the outstanding positive factor. TBCL caused a lower cumulative inefficiency over SR at 1, 90 and 180 days (83.2% vs. 86.8%, 54.0% vs. 63.6%, and 38.3% vs. 50.9%, respectively; all P<0.05). Propensity matching also found TBCL caused a lower cumulative inefficiency over SR after 1, 90 and 180 days (82.4% vs. 86.4%, 51.1% vs. 62.5%, and 33.5% vs. 49.4%, respectively; all P<0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that TBCL caused a greater ADL gain regardless of injured site, segments of injury and injured extent, as well as whether concurrent with neurogenic bladder, neurogenic intestinal and respiratory disorder (all P<0.05). Further, TBCL was more effective in 180-days overall ADL gain within each subgroup (all P<0.05), except the subgroup whether concurrent with respiratory disorder (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that TBCL strategy was the most outstanding independent positive factors for ADL gain. Further, TBCL is a better choice than SR in ADL gain for SCI-relevant neurological dysfunctions in case of adequate stimuli distance and individual temperature, regardless of discrepancy of clinical feature.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: This study helps to improve everyday management for rehabilitative intervention on SCI. For another thing, the present study may be good for neuromodulation practice on function restoring in SCI rehabilitation clinics.

References

  1. Brain Stimul. 2020 Sep - Oct;13(5):1464-1466 [PMID: 32800965]
  2. Lancet Neurol. 2020 Feb;19(2):123-134 [PMID: 31870766]
  3. Int J Artif Organs. 2020 May;43(5):323-331 [PMID: 31714170]
  4. Spinal Cord. 2021 Jul;59(7):804-813 [PMID: 33268825]
  5. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Oct;17(10):905-917 [PMID: 30264729]
  6. J Neurotrauma. 2017 May 15;34(10):1841-1857 [PMID: 27762657]
  7. J Spinal Cord Med. 2019 Nov;42(6):778-785 [PMID: 29323634]
  8. Neuron. 2007 Jul 19;55(2):187-99 [PMID: 17640522]
  9. Spinal Cord. 2018 Jan;56(1):46-51 [PMID: 28895576]
  10. J Neurotrauma. 2021 Feb;38(3):301-308 [PMID: 32703074]
  11. Front Hum Neurosci. 2020 Oct 23;14:583579 [PMID: 33192418]
  12. J Psychiatr Res. 2019 Aug;115:142-150 [PMID: 31129438]
  13. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017 Feb;18(2):86-100 [PMID: 28003656]
  14. J Neurotrauma. 2017 Feb;34(3):623-631 [PMID: 27528274]
  15. Neuromodulation. 2020 Apr;23(3):291-300 [PMID: 30896060]
  16. Nat Rev Neurol. 2021 Jan;17(1):53-62 [PMID: 33311711]
  17. World Neurosurg. 2020 Aug;140:574-590 [PMID: 32437998]
  18. Cell Transplant. 2018 Jun;27(6):853-866 [PMID: 29871522]
  19. J Rehabil Med. 2022 Feb 14;54:jrm00262 [PMID: 35166364]
  20. BMC Neurol. 2019 Jul 19;19(1):171 [PMID: 31324152]
  21. Surg Clin North Am. 2017 Oct;97(5):1031-1045 [PMID: 28958356]
  22. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Oct;100(10):1894-1906 [PMID: 31026462]
  23. J Orthop Sci. 2019 Mar;24(2):230-236 [PMID: 30361169]
  24. J Neurotrauma. 2019 Jun 15;36(12):2020-2027 [PMID: 30489193]
  25. Int Neurourol J. 2017 Sep;21(3):178-188 [PMID: 28954467]
  26. Clin Neurophysiol. 2020 Feb;131(2):474-528 [PMID: 31901449]
  27. Neural Plast. 2016;2016:4039580 [PMID: 28050288]
  28. Curr Opin Neurol. 2018 Apr;31(2):198-210 [PMID: 29493559]
  29. Brain Stimul. 2018 Sep - Oct;11(5):1083-1092 [PMID: 29848448]
  30. Neural Regen Res. 2020 Aug;15(8):1437-1450 [PMID: 31997803]
  31. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2020 Feb 4;20(1):1 [PMID: 32020300]
  32. BMJ Open. 2020 Oct 6;10(10):e037198 [PMID: 33028550]
  33. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Jun 9;15(1):214 [PMID: 32517761]
  34. Front Neurosci. 2021 Jul 28;15:720542 [PMID: 34393721]
  35. Lancet. 2018 Apr 28;391(10131):1683-1692 [PMID: 29726344]
  36. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2018 Feb 10;20(1):6 [PMID: 29427050]
  37. Neurotherapeutics. 2018 Jul;15(3):618-627 [PMID: 29946981]
  38. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2020 Aug;31(3):331-343 [PMID: 32624098]
  39. Spinal Cord. 2019 Sep;57(9):739-746 [PMID: 30988399]
  40. World Neurosurg. 2020 Apr;136:330-336 [PMID: 31931244]
  41. J Neurosci. 2019 Oct 2;39(40):7872-7881 [PMID: 31413076]
  42. Brain. 2020 May 1;143(5):1368-1382 [PMID: 32355959]
  43. Endocrine. 2021 Feb;71(2):331-343 [PMID: 32964308]
  44. Brain Stimul. 2020 May - Jun;13(3):565-575 [PMID: 32289678]
  45. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2018 Aug 29;20(10):47 [PMID: 30159690]
  46. J Neurophysiol. 2019 Mar 1;121(3):853-866 [PMID: 30625010]
  47. J Spinal Cord Med. 2022 Mar;45(2):214-220 [PMID: 32703104]
  48. J Neurol Sci. 2020 Nov 15;418:117149 [PMID: 33002757]
  49. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2019 Jul 30;19(9):65 [PMID: 31363857]
  50. J Spinal Cord Med. 2019 Nov;42(6):695-701 [PMID: 30943115]
  51. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015 Sep;58(4):208-213 [PMID: 26319963]
  52. J Rehabil Med. 2020 Nov 19;52(11):jrm00123 [PMID: 33112409]

MeSH Term

Humans
Activities of Daily Living
Retrospective Studies
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Propensity Score
China
Spinal Cord Injuries
Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0TBCLgainADLvsinjurySCIstudySR05positiveneurogenicP<0independentfactorsmatchingcumulativewellsubgroupanalysisrespiratorydisorderstrategycaused4%magneticclosed-loopmodalityrestoringspinalcordactivitydailylivingretrospectivepatientsneurologicalNrehabilitationpropensityscorealsoperformedwithinclinicalshowedbladderintestinaloutstandinglowerinefficiency190180days86respectively5%regardlessinjuredwhetherconcurrentBACKGROUND:AlthoughtranscranialstimulationTMS-basedseldomrecommendedfunctionalfollowingseveralstudiesrecentlycamesuggestionAIM:exploreinfluencesystematicallyinvestigateefficacyDESIGN:observationalSETTING:FirstAffiliatedHospitalGuangxiMedicalUniversityPOPULATION:dysfunctionMETHODS:total768received=548sole=220enrolledAnalysisFinallyinefficienciesentirepatientpopulationmatched-patientspercharacteristicsRESULTS:Multivariatethoracolumbarsingle/doubleincompleteMeanwhilefactor832%8%540%636%383%509%Propensityfound82511%623349Subgroupgreatersitesegmentsextenteffective180-daysoverallexceptP>0CONCLUSIONS:indicatesbetterchoiceSCI-relevantdysfunctionscaseadequatestimulidistanceindividualtemperaturediscrepancyfeatureCLINICALREHABILITATIONIMPACT:helpsimproveeverydaymanagementrehabilitativeinterventionanotherthingpresentmaygoodneuromodulationpracticefunctionclinicsTranscranialstimulation-basedinjury:using

Similar Articles

Cited By