Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Post-stroke Non-fluent Aphasia in Relation with Broca's Area.
Aphasia
Broca's Area
Language Tests
Stroke
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Journal
Brain & NeuroRehabilitation
ISSN: 2383-9910
Titre abrégé: Brain Neurorehabil
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101769810
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
05
03
2021
revised:
13
07
2021
accepted:
14
07
2021
entrez:
6
2
2023
pubmed:
16
7
2021
medline:
16
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study investigated the differences in the effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) between patients with and without the involvement of Broca's area (IBA). The medical records of 20 stroke patients treated with rTMS for non-fluent aphasia were reviewed. Patients completed the Korean version of the Western Aphasia Battery (K-WAB) pre- and post-rTMS. Magnetic resonance T1-weighted images of the brain were analyzed using SPM12 software. Montreal Neurological Institute templates and Talairach coordinates were used to determine Broca's area involvement and segregate patients into 2 groups: IBA and non-IBA (NBA) groups. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software. Twenty subjects were included in the study. The K-WAB scores revealed improvements in the total subjects and IBA and NBA groups. There were no statistical differences between the IBA and NBA groups in the ΔK-WAB scores of aphasia quotient, fluency, comprehension, repetition, and naming. The rTMS was positive for non-fluent aphasia patients, but there was no significant difference in effectiveness depending on the IBA. Further research with a larger number of patients is needed to identify the differences in the effect of rTMS on the IBA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36743437
doi: 10.12786/bn.2021.14.e15
pmc: PMC9879501
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e15Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021. Korean Society for Neurorehabilitation.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest: The corresponding author of this manuscript is an editor of Brain & NeuroRehabilitation. The corresponding author did not engage in any part of the review and decision-making process for this manuscript. The other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Eur Stroke J. 2020 Dec;5(4):402-413
pubmed: 33598559
ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:518568
pubmed: 23213288
Neurol Res. 2003 Dec;25(8):815-8
pubmed: 14669524
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1983 Jan;46(1):5-8
pubmed: 6842200
Brain Lang. 1998 Oct 1;64(3):282-96
pubmed: 9743543
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 01;(6):CD000425
pubmed: 27245310
Clin Neurophysiol. 2020 Feb;131(2):474-528
pubmed: 31901449
Neuropsychol Rev. 2011 Sep;21(3):302-17
pubmed: 21845354
J Speech Hear Disord. 1980 Aug;45(3):308-24
pubmed: 7412225
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2004 Nov;26(8):1011-20
pubmed: 15590457
Exp Brain Res. 2000 Aug;133(4):425-30
pubmed: 10985677
Brain Lang. 1993 Feb;44(2):153-64
pubmed: 8428309
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016 Dec;97(12):2188-2201.e8
pubmed: 27063364
Soc Neurosci. 2007;2(1):14-27
pubmed: 18633804
Stroke. 2012 Jul;43(7):1849-57
pubmed: 22713491
Neurol Res. 2018 Jun;40(6):459-465
pubmed: 29589518
Can J Neurol Sci. 1974 Feb;1(1):7-16
pubmed: 4434266
NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;36(1):107-14
pubmed: 25547773
Ann Rehabil Med. 2016 Oct;40(5):786-793
pubmed: 27847708
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999 Mar;66(3):365-9
pubmed: 10084536
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 18;9(7):e102557
pubmed: 25036386
Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Nov;125(11):2150-2206
pubmed: 25034472
J Neurol Sci. 2015 May 15;352(1-2):12-8
pubmed: 25888529
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014 Oct;28(8):779-87
pubmed: 24526709