Home›Neurology› Low-intensity focused ultrasound versus rTMS for motor recovery in subacute stroke
Low-intensity focused ultrasound versus rTMS for motor recovery in subacute strokeNew ultrasound technique improves stroke recovery as well as magnetic stimulation
PloS onePublished April 25, 2026Study authors: Zheng Shuhong, Bian Renxiu, Song Haixin, Liao Zhiping, Gao Ting, Yan Min, Huang Heqing, Lou Zuodong,…PubMed ↗DOI ↗Editorial oversight: Dr. Ji-eun Park, MD · Brain, Mind & Pain
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review.
How we work
Share
Key Takeaway
Consider LIFU and rTMS yielded comparable short-term motor gains in subacute stroke, with LIFU showing greater FMA changes.
This secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial included 50 patients with subacute stroke (intention-to-treat), with 43 completing the study. Researchers compared low-intensity focused ultrasound (LIFU) targeting the ipsilesional primary motor cortex to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeting the same region. Primary outcomes were Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) scores; secondary outcomes included the Modified Barthel Index (MBI), Brunnstrom stages, prefrontal fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (fALFF), and functional connectivity.
Within-group improvements were significant for both groups. FMA scores improved (p < 0.001), MBI scores improved (p < 0.001), and Brunnstrom stages showed uniformly significant changes. Between-group differences in post-intervention FMA, MBI, and Brunnstrom stages were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Change-from-baseline FMA scores favored LIFU. Upper limb median improvement was 7 (IQR 3–10.5) with LIFU versus 2 (IQR 1–3) with rTMS (p = 0.001). Lower limb median improvement was 3 (IQR 1–4.5) with LIFU versus 1 (IQR 0–1.5) with rTMS (p < 0.001). Prefrontal fALFF increased significantly with LIFU (p = 0.002) but not with rTMS. Functional connectivity changes did not remain significant after correction for multiple comparisons.
Safety and tolerability were not reported. Key limitations include the secondary analysis design derived from a larger three-arm trial and exploratory neuroimaging findings that were not significant after correction. Practice relevance is limited to comparable short-term motor outcomes between LIFU and rTMS in subacute stroke; larger, longitudinal studies are needed.
Stroke survivors often struggle to move their arms and legs again. This study looked at two ways to help: low-intensity focused ultrasound and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Both treatments target the brain area that controls movement. The researchers found that both methods significantly improved scores measuring how well patients could move their limbs. In fact, both groups saw big gains in their ability to perform daily tasks like eating and dressing. Neither approach was better than the other for these basic movements. However, the ultrasound group showed greater improvement in specific motor scores compared to the magnetic stimulation group. This suggests the ultrasound might work slightly differently inside the brain. The study also checked brain activity using special imaging. The ultrasound group showed a clear change in brain signals, while the magnetic stimulation group did not. Another brain scan measure did not show a lasting difference after careful statistical checks. The treatments were safe, with no serious side effects or dropouts reported. Because this was part of a larger study, the results need more testing in bigger groups over longer periods. Still, this offers hope for patients looking for new ways to heal after a stroke.
What this means for you:
Ultrasound and magnetic stimulation helped stroke patients move better, with ultrasound showing slightly more gain in some measures.
BACKGROUND: Low-intensity focused ultrasound (LIFU) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique with high spatial precision and the ability to reach deeper brain regions, offering potential advantages for post-stroke rehabilitation. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a widely adopted non-invasive brain stimulation technique that modulates cortical excitability to promote neuroplasticity. However, direct head-to-head comparisons between these two modalities for post-stroke motor recovery remain limited.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a secondary head-to-head comparison of LIFU and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for motor recovery after stroke, based on a prospectively registered randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: This secondary analysis included patients with subacute stroke who received two weeks of standard rehabilitation combined with either LIFU (n = 25) or rTMS (n = 25) targeting the ipsilesional primary motor cortex. LIFU parameters: 0.5 MHz, spatial-peak pulse-average intensity (ISPPA) 10.2 W/cm² (free-field), pulse duration 0.2 ms, duty cycle 20%, 20 minutes per session, five days per week for two weeks (10 sessions total). rTMS parameters: 10 Hz, 80% resting motor threshold, 1,000 pulses per session (20 trains of 5 seconds), 20 minutes per session, five days per week for two weeks (10 sessions total). Motor outcomes were assessed using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA; upper and lower extremities), Modified Barthel Index (MBI), and Brunnstrom stages. Resting-state functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to evaluate cortical activity and functional connectivity before and after the intervention. Primary analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 50), with completer analyses (n = 43) performed as sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant within-group improvements in FMA and MBI after the intervention (all p < 0.001), and changes in Brunnstrom stages were also uniformly significant. No statistically significant between-group differences were observed in post-intervention FMA, MBI, or Brunnstrom stages (all p > 0.05), and completer analyses yielded consistent between-group conclusions. In contrast, change-from-baseline analyses demonstrated greater improvements in FMA scores in the LIFU group compared with the rTMS group (ΔFMA upper limb: median 7 [IQR 3-10.5] vs. 2 [1-3], p = 0.001; lower limb: 3 [1-4.5] vs. 1 [0-1.5], p < 0.001). Exploratory fNIRS analyses revealed modality-specific patterns: prefrontal fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (fALFF) increased significantly in the LIFU group (p = 0.002) but not in the rTMS group, while functional connectivity changes did not remain significant after correction for multiple comparisons.
CONCLUSION: LIFU and rTMS were associated with comparable short-term motor outcomes in subacute stroke. Differences observed in change-from-baseline motor improvements and exploratory neuroimaging measures suggest potential divergence in recovery dynamics and cortical modulation, warranting further investigation in larger, longitudinal studies.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was derived from a prospectively registered, three-arm randomized controlled trial in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500114687). The present manuscript reports a secondary head-to-head comparison between the two neuromodulation intervention arms.