| ObjectiveInvestigate the awaking function of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treating vegetative state patients, so that to lay the foundation for providing a safe and effective clinical treatment of vegetative state patients.MethodsSelect16cases of vegetative state patients in line with the test criteria, the test group and the control group respectively have8cases. The gender, age, site of injury, disease course of the test group matched with the control group. The test group of patients before treatment were evaluated by CRS-R score scale, EEG and brainstem auditory evoked potential (BAEP). Then the patients were given both conventional rehabilitation and rTMS therapy on the super excited prefrontal cortex, the stimulation frequency was0.5Hz,1times a day,30minutes each time,5times a week and continued3weeks. After three weeks, retest CRS-R, EEG and BAEP. The control group of patients before treatment were evaluated by CRS-R score scale, EEG and BAEP. Then they recepted conventional rehabilitation for3weeks. Retest CRS-R, EEG and BAEP after three weeks. Analyze the changes of the observed indicators between the test and control groups before and after treatment.Results1. CRS-R score difference before treatment was no statistical significance (P>0.05) between the test group and the control group, and CRS-R score difference between two groups after treatment was statistically significant (P<0.05). CRS-R score difference of the test group before and after treatment were statistically significant (P<0.05), but the CRS-R score of the control group before and after treatment had no statistical significance (P>0.05), moreover CRS-R score change rate of the test group before and after treatment was higher than the control group (P<0.05).2. Compare brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEP)2.1The5wave latency difference of the left and right sides of BAEP between the test group and the control group before treatment were no statistical significance (P>0.05); After treatment,5wave latency difference of the left and right sides of BAEP between the two groups were statistically significant (P<0.05). The5wave latency difference of the test group on the left and right sides of BAEP before and after treatment all were statistically significant (P<0.05). I and II latency difference of the control group on the left side of BAEP before and after treatment were not statistically significant (P>0.05),Ⅲ Ⅳand V latency difference of the control group on the left side of BAEP before and after treatment were statistically significant (P <0.05); Ⅰ、Ⅲ、ⅣandⅤlatency difference of the control group on the right side of BAEP before and after treatment were statistically significant (P<0.05), the II latency difference of the control group on the right side of BAEP before and after treatment were not statistically significant (P>0.05).2.2Before treatment, Ⅰ-Ⅲ peak period, Ⅲ-Ⅳ peak period and Ⅲ-Ⅴ/Ⅰ-Ⅲ difference of the left and right sides of BAEP between the test group and the control group were not statistically significant (P>0.05). After treatment, Ⅰ-Ⅲ peak period、Ⅲ-Ⅳ peak period and Ⅲ-Ⅴ/Ⅰ-Ⅲ difference of the left and right sides of BAEP between the two groups were statistically significant (P<0.05). Ⅰ-Ⅲ peak period、Ⅲ-Ⅳ peak period and Ⅲ-Ⅴ/Ⅰ-Ⅲ difference of the test group on the left and right sides of BAEP before and after treatment were statistically significant (P<0.05); Ⅰ-Ⅲ peak period、Ⅲ-Ⅳ peak period and Ⅲ-Ⅴ/Ⅰ-Ⅲ difference of the control group on the left and right sides of BAEP before and after treatment were statistically significant (P<0.05).3.After treatment, the a wave of the test group patients increased, and its amplitude and power also have increased;θand8waves did not change significantly before and after treatment, but its amplitude and power decreased. In the control group, a wave also have increased after treatment, and its amplitude and power have increased, however the amplitude and power of θ and δ waves did not change significantly before and after treatment. The test group and the control group all did not arise epilepsy waves before and after treatment.Conclusion1. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation can improve the function of the central nervous and consciousness on vegetative state patients with a certain awaking effect;2. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation can be used as a safe, effective and clinical treatment for vegetative state patients.3. Brainstem auditory evoked potentials can be more sensitive to objectively reflect the changes in brain function.4. EEG monitoring can be used as an indicator of seizures and objectively reflect the state of brain function. |
PDF Full Text Request