Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Aging Neurosci.

Sec. Neurocognitive Aging and Behavior

Volume 17 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2025.1623039

Comparative efficacy of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation versus repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in improving lower extremity motor function in subacute stroke patients

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Beijing Xiaotangshan Hospital, Beijing, China
  • 2Tianjin University of Sport, Tianjin, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) is more beneficial in activating the leg muscle cortical representation. However, to date, no studies have evaluated the advantages of dTMS compared to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in improving lower extremity motor function in subacute stroke patients. This study aims to compare the efficacy of dTMS and rTMS in treating lower extremity motor dysfunction in subacute stroke patients.In this single-blind, randomized controlled trial, fifty subacute stroke patients with lower extremity motor dysfunction were randomized to receive either dTMS or rTMS treatment. Patients' Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Lower Extremity (FMA-LE), 10m Maximum Walking Speed (10m MWS), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT), walking velocity, stride rate, stride length, gait cycle, double support percentage, and Resting Motor Threshold (RMT) were assessed before the intervention and after the 4-week intervention. Treatment effects were compared using two-way repeated-measures ANOVA. Correlations between lower extremity motor function and cortical excitability were analyzed using Pearson correlation analysis.Results: Forty-five patients completed the study (dTMS group: n=22; rTMS group: n=23). Two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed significant group × time interaction effects for FMA-LE, 10m MWS, BBS, TUGT, walking velocity, stride length, gait cycle, and double support percentage. Post hoc analyses revealed both groups improved significantly from baseline in FMA-LE, 10m MWS, BBS, TUGT, RMT, walking velocity, stride length, and double support percentage. The dTMS group additionally improved stride rate and gait cycle, while the rTMS group did not. Post-intervention, the dTMS group demonstrated significantly greater improvements than rTMS in FMA-LE, 10m MWS, TUGT, and walking velocity. After 4 weeks, RMT was significantly negatively correlated with FMA-LE, 10 m MWS, BBS, and walking velocity. RMT was positively correlated with TUGT.Both dTMS and rTMS can improve lower extremity motor dysfunction in subacute stroke patients. Compared to rTMS, dTMS may provide more facilitative and accelerative effects to promote FMA-LE, TUGT, 10m MWS, and walking velocity. Therefore, as an adjunct to conventional rehabilitation therapies, dTMS is a valuable therapeutic option in stroke rehabilitation programs.

Keywords: Stroke, Lower Extremity, Motor function, deep transcranial magnetic stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

Received: 05 May 2025; Accepted: 14 Aug 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Wang, Zhang, Liu, Xiang, Qi, Fu, Zhao, Xiong, Zhang and Wu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
Qin Zhang, Beijing Xiaotangshan Hospital, Beijing, China
Liang Wu, Beijing Xiaotangshan Hospital, Beijing, China

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.