High Versus Low Frequency rTMS on Motor Dysfunction in PD

Assiut University40 enrolled

Overview

The aim of the study is to compare high versus low frequency rTMS on motor dysfunction in PD. Forty patients with PD participated in the study. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups; the first group received 1Hz and the 2nd one received 20 Hz rTMS daily for 10 days 5 sessions every week. The doctors who assess the patients clinically is blind for the frequency of rTMS, also patients don't know which type of stimulation they received. The patients were followed up before and after the 10 sessions and one month later.

The aim of the study is to compare high versus low frequency rTMS on motor dysfunction in PD. Forty patients with PD participated in the study. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups; the first group received 1Hz and the 2nd one received 20 Hz rTMS daily for 10 days 5 sessions every week and 2 days off per week. The doctors who assess the patients clinically is blind for the frequency of rTMS, also patients don't know which type of stimulation they received. The patients were followed up before and after the 10 sessions and one month later.

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

DOUBLE

Enrollment

Conditions

Parkinson Disease

Interventions

rTMSDEVICE

the first group received 20 Hz and the 2nd group received 1 Hz rTMS daily for 10 days 5 sessions every week on M1.

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 50 YearsMax age: 80 Years

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: * All PD patients who were diagnosed according to UK bank criteria for PD. Exclusion Criteria: * History of repeated head injury. * History of repeated cerebrovascular strokes * History of defined encephalitis * Oculogyric crisis, supra nuclear gaze palsy. * Family history of more than one relative * severe dementia, MMSE \< 23, severe depression * Cerebellar signs * Babiniski sign * Hydrocephalus or intracranial lesion on neuroimaging * Patients with intracranial on neuroimaging * Patients with intracranial metallic device or pacemaker * Patients who were unable to give informed consent because of severe anesthesia, or cognitive deficit

Locations (1)

Eman Khedr

Asyut, Egypt

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

change in motor disability

Measure the change in motor disability by using UPDRS and self assessment scale

Time frame: one month

Secondary Outcomes

Changes in Cortical excitability

Measure the changes in cortical excitability using magnetic stimulation appratus

Time frame: Two weeks

Data from ClinicalTrials.gov

This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.