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.
Low-intensity focused ultrasound versus rTMS for motor recovery in subacute strokeNew ultrasound technique improves stroke recovery as well as magnetic stimulation
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work
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.