Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on the modulation of cortical and spinal cord excitability in individuals with spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been applied for modulating cortical excitability and treating spasticity in neurological lesions. However, it is unclear which rTMS frequency is most effective in modulating cortical and spinal excitability in incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate electrophysiological and clinical repercussions of rTMS compared to sham stimulation when applied to the primary motor cortex (M1) in individuals with incomplete SCI.

METHODS

A total of 11 subjects (35±12 years) underwent three experimental sessions of rTMS (10 Hz, 1 Hz and sham stimulation) in a randomized order at 90%intensity of the resting motor threshold and interspersed by a seven-day interval between sessions. The following outcome measures were evaluated: M1 and spinal cord excitability and spasticity in the moments before (baseline), immediately after (T0), 30 (T30) and 60 (T60) minutes after rTMS. M1 excitability was obtained through the motor evoked potential (MEP); spinal cord excitability by the Hoffman reflex (H-reflex) and homosynaptic depression (HD); and spasticity by the modified Ashworth scale (MAS).

RESULTS

A significant increase in cortical excitability was observed in subjects submitted to 10 Hz rTMS at the T0 moment when compared to sham stimulation (p = 0.008); this increase was also significant at T0 (p = 0.009), T30 (p = 0.005) and T60 (p = 0.005) moments when compared to the baseline condition. No significant differences were observed after the 10 Hz rTMS on spinal excitability or on spasticity. No inter-group differences were detected, or in the time after application of 1 Hz rTMS, or after sham stimulation for any of the assessed outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

High-frequency rTMS applied to M1 was able to promote increased cortical excitability in individuals with incomplete SCI for at least 60 minutes; however, it did not modify spinal excitability or spasticity.