Neuroplasticity-Driven Recovery in Post-Stroke Patients Following Combined Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Robotic Neurorehabilitation Therapy in a Longitudinal Clinical Study
Keywords:
Neuroplasticity, Stroke Rehabilitation, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), Robotic Therapy, Cortical Reorganization, Motor Recovery, Brain Stimulation, Longitudinal StudyAbstract
Purpose: This study explores the synergistic effects of combining Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) with robotic neurorehabilitation therapy to promote neuroplasticity and functional recovery in post-stroke patients.
Methodology: A longitudinal clinical study was conducted over 18 months with 64 post-stroke patients randomized into two groups: one receiving combined TMS and robotic therapy and the other receiving conventional physiotherapy. Assessments included functional motor scores, cortical excitability metrics, and structural MRI changes.
Findings: Patients undergoing combined therapy exhibited significantly greater improvements in motor function and neuroplasticity markers. The combined therapy group demonstrated 34% higher gains in Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMMA) scores compared to the control group, along with increased cortical thickness and functional connectivity.
Practical implications: Integrating non-invasive brain stimulation with precision robotic therapy offers a feasible and effective pathway to enhance stroke rehabilitation outcomes in clinical settings.
Originality: This is among the first studies to longitudinally track both structural and functional indicators of neuroplasticity in response to hybrid neuromodulation-robotic interventions in stroke recovery.
References
[1] Cramer, Steven C., et al. “Enhancing Recovery after Stroke: New Advances in Neurorehabilitation.” Nature Reviews Neurology, vol. 13, no. 12, 2017, pp. 744–755.
[2] Lefaucheur, Jean-Pascal, et al. “Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Therapeutic Use of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS).” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 131, no. 2, 2020, pp. 474–528.
[3] Mehrholz, Jan, et al. “Electromechanical and Robot-Assisted Arm Training for Improving Activities of Daily Living, Arm Function, and Arm Muscle Strength after Stroke.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 9, 2018.
[4] Nudo, Randolph J. “Recovery after Brain Injury: Mechanisms and Principles.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 7, 2013, article 887.
[5] Kimberley, Teresa J., et al. “Combining Brain Stimulation and Robotic Therapy to Promote Neuroplasticity after Stroke.” Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 13, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1–12.
[6] Hummel, Friedhelm C., and Leonardo G. Cohen. “Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation: A New Strategy to Improve Neurorehabilitation after Stroke?” The Lancet Neurology, vol. 5, no. 8, 2006, pp. 708–712.
[7] Krakauer, John W. “Motor Learning: Its Relevance to Stroke Recovery and Neurorehabilitation.” Current Opinion in Neurology, vol. 19, no. 1, 2006, pp. 84–90.
[8] Langhorne, Peter, Julie Bernhardt, and Geoffrey Kwakkel. “Stroke Rehabilitation.” The Lancet, vol. 377, no. 9778, 2011, pp. 1693–1702.
[9] Takeuchi, Naoyuki, and Izumi S. Izumi. “Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Motor Recovery after Stroke.” Stroke, vol. 43, no. 1, 2012, pp. 298–305.
[10] Ward, Nick S. “Restoring Brain Function after Stroke—Bridging the Gap between Animals and Humans.” Nature Reviews Neurology, vol. 13, no. 4, 2017, pp. 244–255.
