Fattorini Luigi, Pettorossi Vito Enrico, Marchetti Enrico, Rodio Angelo, Filippi Guido Maria
Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Department of Human Physiology, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
Front Neurol. 2025 Jun 4;16:1579118. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1579118. eCollection 2025.
This review analyses the benefits of focal muscle vibration (FV) in the treatment of spasticity enhancing current understanding and promoting sustained improvements in motor function. Findings could support the selection of optimal FV protocols, guide future research, and provide insights into the mechanisms by which FV may improve motor function in individuals with spasticity.
A systematic search was conducted using the online databases PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library. Including criteria: (a) participants presented with chronic spasticity; (b) the intervention involved the application of localized mechanical vibration; and (c) outcomes included neuromuscular functional parameters. Data extraction was performed independently by four reviewers, using a modified version of the 16-item Downs and Black checklist.
A total of 20 studies were selected, most of which investigated on spasticity following stroke, as well as in conditions such as cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, and Minamata syndrome. FV effects were assessed using several methodologies: functional scales, digital analysis and electrophysiological evaluations. After-effects were positive and significant in 19 studies, while one study found non-significant results. In three studies, follow-up durations ranged between 1 and 30 days, and exceeded 1 month in seven. When adequate tests were performed, improvements extended to untreated muscles and involved complex motor behaviors.
The after-effects of FV appear to be most relevant and long-lasting when a high-frequency (75-120 Hz), small-amplitude sinusoidal vibrations are repeatedly applied. The observed enduring improvements in complex motor behaviors suggest the involvement of sensory-motor mechanisms. These findings are discussed in the context of previous studies on FV.
本综述分析了局部肌肉振动（FV）在治疗痉挛方面的益处，以增进当前的理解，并促进运动功能的持续改善。研究结果可为选择最佳FV方案提供支持，指导未来研究，并深入了解FV改善痉挛患者运动功能的机制。
使用在线数据库PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆进行系统检索。纳入标准：（a）参与者患有慢性痉挛；（b）干预措施包括应用局部机械振动；（c）结果包括神经肌肉功能参数。由四名评审员独立进行数据提取，使用16项唐斯和布莱克清单的修改版本。
共选取了20项研究，其中大部分研究了中风后以及脑瘫、多发性硬化症和水俣病综合征等疾病中的痉挛情况。使用多种方法评估FV效果：功能量表、数字分析和电生理评估。19项研究的后效应为阳性且显著，而一项研究结果不显著。在三项研究中，随访时间为1至30天，七项研究超过1个月。当进行充分测试时，改善扩展到未治疗的肌肉，并涉及复杂的运动行为。
当反复应用高频（75 - 120Hz）、小振幅正弦振动时，FV的后效应似乎最为相关且持久。观察到的复杂运动行为的持久改善表明感觉运动机制的参与。这些发现结合之前关于FV的研究进行了讨论。
