Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This is a randomized, controlled trial investigating the efficacy and precision of neuronavigation -guided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for motor recovery in patients with subacute stroke hemiparesis.
The primary goal is to determine if using neuronavigation to precisely target the unaffected primary motor cortex (M1) improves treatment accuracy, efficiency, and clinical outcomes compared to conventional manual positioning.
The study will enroll 30 participants with first-ever stroke onset between 2 weeks and 6 months. Participants will be randomized into two parallel groups: the Experimental Group (neuronavigation-guided rTMS) and the Control Group (conventional positioning rTMS). Both groups will receive the same rTMS parameters: 1 Hz stimulation (low-frequency) over the unaffected M1, 1,200 pulses per session, administered for 10 sessions over 2 consecutive weeks.
Primary outcome measures include the change in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) Score for the Upper Extremity and the measurement of coil positioning deviation between sessions. Assessments will be conducted at baseline (T0), post-treatment (T1, Week 3), and one month post-treatment (T2, Week 7). This study is funded in part by a research grant from the Metal Industries Research & Development Centre (MIRDC).
This is a single-center, randomized, two-group parallel-assignment interventional trial conducted at Taichung Veterans General Hospital to compare the effectiveness of neuronavigation-guided rTMS versus conventional rTMS in subacute stroke patients with hemiparesis.
Background: Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) is recognized for its potential in stroke rehabilitation, with low-frequency (1 Hz) stimulation over the unaffected motor cortex in the subacute phase rated as Grade A (definitely effective) for upper limb motor recovery. However, the efficacy of rTMS is highly dependent on accurate and consistent coil placement over the target cortical area.
Study Hypothesis: We hypothesize that using neuronavigation-which integrates infrared tracking with brain MRI to establish a precise 3D coordinate reference-will significantly increase the treatment precision, reduce the required localization time, and ultimately lead to superior clinical outcomes compared to conventional manual targeting methods.
Intervention Details:
(1)Experimental Group (n=15): Coil positioning will be guided by a neuronavigational system throughout all 10 sessions. The system tracks the coil and patient's head relative to the initial M1 hotspot.
(2)Control Group (n=15): Coil positioning will rely on standard manual localization (e.g., cap positioning).
Outcome Assessments:
The study will track three primary outcomes: FMA score (a key measure of motor function), coil positioning deviation (a measure of precision), and the time required for initial hotspot localization. Secondary outcomes include functional and spasticity measures such as the Barthel Index (BI), Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), Modified Ashworth Scale (mAS), and neurophysiological parameters (MEP, EEG).
Timeline:
All outcome measures will be assessed at three time points: Baseline (T0), Post-treatment (T1, Week 3), and 1-month Follow-up (T2, Week 7).
Safety:
All adverse events, including rare severe events like seizures (<0.01%) and syncope, will be managed according to standard emergency protocols, and treatment will be discontinued if adverse effects persist or significant clinical weakness occurs. The study protocol is within established safety guidelines.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neuronavigation-Guided Low-Frequency rTMS | Experimental | Participants in this arm receive low-frequency rTMS where the coil positioning is guided and recorded by a neuronavigational system during each of the 10 sessions. The system ensures precise targeting of the M1 hotspot contralateral to the lesion. |
|
| Conventional Positioning Low-Frequency rTMS | Active Comparator | Participants in this arm receive the same low-frequency rTMS, but the coil positioning is performed via Standard Manual Localization (e.g., using cap positioning) over the M1 hotspot. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neuronavigation-Assisted rTMS for Stroke Hemiparesis | Device | Low-frequency (1 Hz) rTMS targeting the M1 "hotspot" contralateral to the lesion, delivered at 80% motor threshold (MT). Each session consists of 1,200 pulses (10 seconds ON, 1 second OFF, repeated 120 cycles). Treatment schedule: 1 session daily, 5 days/week, for 2 consecutive weeks (10 sessions total). Coil positioning is guided by a neuronavigational system using infrared camera and tracking balls. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) Score | The FMA is a quantitative, reliable, and widely used stroke-specific assessment tool for measuring motor recovery. This scale ranges from 0 to 66 points, where a higher score indicates better motor function of the upper limb. The difference in FMA scores between the neuronavigation group and the standard localization group will be compared to evaluate the treatment efficacy. | Baseline (T0), Post-treatment (T1, 2 weeks), and 1 Month Post-treatment (T2) |
| Deviation in Coil Positioning | This measure quantifies the positional stability and accuracy of the rTMS coil placement. The neuronavigational system records positional coordinates before and after each session in the experimental group. The outcome will compare the intra-session (stability throughout a single treatment) and inter-session (change from baseline to 2 weeks) deviation in coil coordinates between the neuronavigation-guided group and the standard manual localization group. | Intra-session (recorded during each daily treatment session for 2 weeks) and Inter-session (change from baseline to 2 weeks) |
| Time Required for Initial Hotspot Localization | This outcome measures the time (recorded in seconds or minutes) needed to accurately determine the M1 "hotspot" (the site eliciting the maximal motor-evoked potential (MEP)) at the start of the study. This comparison aims to quantify the efficiency difference between the neuronavigation-guided method and the standard manual localization method. | Baseline (T0) |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ting-Chun Fang, M.D. | Contact | +886-965020216 | immotalman@hotmail.com |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D020521 | Stroke |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D002561 | Cerebrovascular Disorders |
| D001927 | Brain Diseases |
| D002493 | Central Nervous System Diseases |
| D009422 | Nervous System Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
This is a two-arm, parallel assignment study where thirty participants with subacute stroke hemiparesis are randomly assigned to one of two groups for intervention. Both groups receive the identical low-frequency rTMS treatment, consisting of ten sessions of 1 Hz stimulation with 1,200 pulses per session, administered over two consecutive weeks. The primary distinction between the arms is the coil localization method: the Experimental Arm utilizes a neuronavigational system to guide and record the precise M1 hotspot positioning during each session, while the Control Arm relies on standard manual localization, such as cap positioning. The study is designed to compare the precision in coil placement and the resulting clinical efficacy of these two methods for motor recovery.
Not provided
Not provided
The study is single-blinded. Participants are masked to their group assignment (neuronavigation-guided rTMS versus conventional rTMS). Due to the inherent differences in the physical setup of the intervention, the personnel administering the rTMS treatment (Care Providers/Investigators) cannot be masked. However, the personnel responsible for evaluating the primary and secondary outcomes (Outcomes Assessors) will be masked to the participants' group assignment to ensure objective measurement of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and other clinical scales.
|
| Standard Localization rTMS for Stroke Hemiparesis | Device | Low-frequency (1 Hz) rTMS targeting the M1 "hotspot" contralateral to the lesion, delivered at 80% MT. Each session consists of 1,200 pulses (10 seconds ON, 1 second OFF, repeated 120 cycles). Treatment schedule: 1 session daily, 5 days/week, for 2 consecutive weeks (10 sessions total). Coil positioning is performed using standard manual localization with cap positioning. |
|
| D014652 | Vascular Diseases |
| D002318 | Cardiovascular Diseases |