The optimal stimulation site for high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: A double-blind crossover pilot study

Yokoe, Masaru; Mano, Tomoo; Maruo, Takeshi; Hosomi, Koichi; Shimokawa, Toshio; Kishima, Haruhiko; Oshino, Satoru; Morris, Shayne; Kageyama, Yu; Goto, Yuko; Shimizu, Takeshi; Mochizuki, Hideki; Yoshimine, Toshiki; Saitoh, Youichi

doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2017.09.023

Cited by 42 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yokoe et al. () reported that one patient had a mild headache during the DLPFC stimulation that spontaneously resolved.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…() and Yokoe et al. () reported prominent motor improvement after HF‐rTMS over the SMA. However, that result was not reproduced by a multicenter trial with the same stimulation site and session numbers (Shirota et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Optimal parameters, however, have yet to be established. For example, many studies used rTMS protocols varying in stimulation parameters such as (a) stimulation sites of primary motor cortex (M1; Benninger et al., ; Bornke, Schulte, Przuntek, & Muller, ; Brys et al., ; Filipovic, Rothwell, van de Warrenburg, & Bhatia, ; Flamez et al., ; Khedr, Farweez, & Islam, ; Khedr, Rothwell, Shawky, Ahmed, & Hamdy, ; Kim et al., ; Lefaucheur et al., ; Maruo et al., ; Okabe, Ugawa, & Kanazawa, ; Siebner, Rossmeier, Mentschel, Peinemann, & Conrad, ; Yokoe et al., ) supplementary motor area (SMA; Brusa et al., ; Eggers, Günther, Rothwell, Timmermann, & Ruge, ; Hamada, Ugawa, & Tsuji, ; Koch et al., ; Shirota, Ohtsu, Hamada, Enomoto, & Ugawa, ; Yokoe et al., ) dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC; Brys et al., ; del Olmo, Bello, & Cudeiro, ; Nardone et al., ; Sedlackova, Rektorova, Srovnalova, & Rektor, ; Yokoe et al., ) the dorsal premotor (PMD; Sedlackova et al., ) and M1+ DLPFC (The M1+ DLPFC stimulation was considered as complex region stimulation; Benninger et al., ; Brys et al., ; Lomarev et al., ;) (b) LF‐rTMS (from 0.2 Hz to 1.0 Hz; Brusa et al., ; Filipovic et al., ; Flamez et al., ; Koch et al., ; Lefaucheur et al., ; Nardone et al., ; Okabe et al., ; Shirota et al., ) or HF‐rTMS (5.0 Hz: Hamada et al., ; Khedr et al., ; Koch et al., ; Siebner et al., , 10.0 Hz: Bornke et al., ; Brys et al., ; del Olmo et al., ; Khedr et al., ; Kim et al., ; Lefaucheur et al., ; Maruo et al., ; Shirota et al., ; Sedlackova et al., ; Yokoe et al., , 25.0 Hz: Lomarev et al., and 50.0 Hz: Benninger et al., ); (c) rTMS sessions: (one session: Bornke e...…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Optimal parameters, however, have yet to be established. For example, many studies used rTMS protocols varying in stimulation parameters such as (a) stimulation sites of primary motor cortex (M1; Benninger et al, 2012;Bornke, Schulte, Przuntek, & Muller, 2004;Brys et al, 2016;Filipovic, Rothwell, van de Warrenburg, & Bhatia, 2009;Flamez et al, 2016;Khedr, Farweez, & Islam, 2003;Khedr, Rothwell, Shawky, Ahmed, & Hamdy, 2006;Kim et al, 2015;Lefaucheur et al, 2004;Maruo et al, 2013;Okabe, Ugawa, & Kanazawa, 2003;Siebner, Rossmeier, Mentschel, Peinemann, & Conrad, 2000;Yokoe et al, 2018) supplementary motor area (SMA; Brusa et al, 2006;Eggers, Günther, Rothwell, Timmermann, & Ruge, 2015;Hamada, Ugawa, & Tsuji, 2008;Koch et al, 2005; Shirota, Ohtsu, Hamada, Enomoto, & Ugawa, 2013;Yokoe et al, 2018) dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC; Brys et al, 2016;del Olmo, Bello, & Cudeiro, 2007;Nardone et al, 2014;Sedlackova, Rektorova, Srovnalova, & Rektor, 2009;Yokoe et al, 2018) the dorsal premotor (PMD; Sedlackova et al, 2009) and M1+ DLPFC (The M1+ DLPFC stimulation was considered as complex region stimulation; Benninger et al, 2011;Brys et al, 2016;Lomarev et al, 2006); (b) LF-rTMS (from 0.2 Hz to 1.0 Hz; Brusa et al, 2006;Filipovic et al, 2009;Flamez et al, 2016;Koch et al, 2005;Lefaucheur et al, 2004;…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for motor recovery in Parkinson's disease: A Meta‐analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionTherapeutic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on motor recovery of Parkinson's disease (PD) have been reported; however, the protocols of these studies varied greatly. The aim of this meta‐analysis was to evaluate the optimal rTMS parameters for motor recovery of PD.MethodsElectronic databases were searched for studies investigating the therapeutic effects of rTMS on motor function in patients with PD. The section III of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) was extracted as the primary outcome, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.ResultsTwenty‐three studies with a total of 646 participants were included. The pooled estimates of rTMS revealed significant short‐term (SMD, 0.37; p < 0.00001) and long‐term (SMD, 0.39; p = 0.005) effects on motor function improvement of PD. Subgroup analysis observed that high‐frequency rTMS (HF‐rTMS) was significant in improving motor function (SMD, 0.48; p < 0.00001), but low‐frequency rTMS (LF‐rTMS) was not. In particular, when HF‐rTMS targeted over the primary motor cortex (M1), in which the bilateral M1 revealed a larger effect size than unilateral M1. Compared to single‐session, multi‐session of HF‐rTMS over the M1 showed significant effect size. In addition, HF‐rTMS over the M1 with a total of 18,000–20,000 stimulation pulses yielded more significant effects (SMD, 0.97; p = 0.01) than other dosages.ConclusionsIn conclusion, multi‐session of HF‐rTMS over the M1 (especially bilateral M1) with a total of 18,000–20,000 pulses appears to be the optimal parameters for motor improvement of PD.

show abstract

“…Yokoe et al. () reported that one patient had a mild headache during the DLPFC stimulation that spontaneously resolved.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Optimal parameters, however, have yet to be established. For example, many studies used rTMS protocols varying in stimulation parameters such as (a) stimulation sites of primary motor cortex (M1; Benninger et al, 2012;Bornke, Schulte, Przuntek, & Muller, 2004;Brys et al, 2016;Filipovic, Rothwell, van de Warrenburg, & Bhatia, 2009;Flamez et al, 2016;Khedr, Farweez, & Islam, 2003;Khedr, Rothwell, Shawky, Ahmed, & Hamdy, 2006;Kim et al, 2015;Lefaucheur et al, 2004;Maruo et al, 2013;Okabe, Ugawa, & Kanazawa, 2003;Siebner, Rossmeier, Mentschel, Peinemann, & Conrad, 2000;Yokoe et al, 2018) supplementary motor area (SMA; Brusa et al, 2006;Eggers, Günther, Rothwell, Timmermann, & Ruge, 2015;Hamada, Ugawa, & Tsuji, 2008;Koch et al, 2005; Shirota, Ohtsu, Hamada, Enomoto, & Ugawa, 2013;Yokoe et al, 2018) dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC; Brys et al, 2016;del Olmo, Bello, & Cudeiro, 2007;Nardone et al, 2014;Sedlackova, Rektorova, Srovnalova, & Rektor, 2009;Yokoe et al, 2018) the dorsal premotor (PMD; Sedlackova et al, 2009) and M1+ DLPFC (The M1+ DLPFC stimulation was considered as complex region stimulation; Benninger et al, 2011;Brys et al, 2016;Lomarev et al, 2006); (b) LF-rTMS (from 0.2 Hz to 1.0 Hz; Brusa et al, 2006;Filipovic et al, 2009;Flamez et al, 2016;Koch et al, 2005;Lefaucheur et al, 2004;…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for motor recovery in Parkinson's disease: A Meta‐analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A single photon emission computed tomography study showed that high‐frequency rTMS led to similar changes as antidepressant fluoxetine with increased regional cerebral blood flow in posterior cingulate gyrus and decreased regional cerebral blood flow in the right medial frontal gyrus . However, some studies showed that neither 10‐Hz rTMS over bilateral DLPFC nor 10‐Hz rTMS to both M1 and DLPFC ameliorate mood symptoms in patients with PD. The relatively short treatment duration may partly explain the negative findings.…”

Section: Noninvasive Brain Stimulation In Pdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invasive and Noninvasive Brain Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease: Clinical Effects and Future Perspectives

Chen

2019

Clin Pharma and Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this review, we discuss the clinical and electrophysiological effects and the future directions of invasive and noninvasive brain stimulations in Parkinson's disease (PD). Deep brain stimulation (DBS) can improve motor symptoms in moderate to advanced PD. However, the optimal stimulation paradigm for nonmotor symptoms (NMS), freezing of gait, and the optimal timing of DBS are still under investigation. The findings of pathological oscillations and abnormal frequency to amplitude coupling provide models to develop adaptive DBS. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) revealed abnormal cortical excitability and plasticity in PD. Consecutive sessions of high‐frequency, repetitive TMS on the motor cortex showed promising results. Paired TMS and DBS at specific times provided a novel way to investigate PD pathophysiology and have potential as a future treatment. Transcranial direct current stimulation or transcranial alternating current stimulation with multifocal electrodes or at specific phases of oscillation are also potential future strategies.

show abstract

The use of transcranial magnetic stimulation as a treatment for movement disorders: A critical review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A BS TRACT: Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation is a safe and painless non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has been largely used in the past 30 years to explore cortical function in healthy participants and, inter alia, the pathophysiology of movement disorders. During the years, its use has evolved from primarily research purposes to treatment of a large variety of neurological and psychiatric diseases. In this article, we illustrate the basic principles on which the therapeutic use of transcranial magnetic stimulation is based and review the clinical trials that have been performed in patients with movement disorders.

show abstract

The optimal stimulation site for high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: A double-blind crossover pilot study

Cited by 42 publications

References 42 publications

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for motor recovery in Parkinson's disease: A Meta‐analysis

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for motor recovery in Parkinson's disease: A Meta‐analysis

Invasive and Noninvasive Brain Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease: Clinical Effects and Future Perspectives

The use of transcranial magnetic stimulation as a treatment for movement disorders: A critical review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About