摘要
目的比较低频重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)与持续θ暴发刺激(cTBS)治疗失眠症的疗效差异。方法选取2018年1~12月丽水市人民医院神经内科收治的60例失眠症患者,随机分为低频rTMS组(32例)和cTBS组(28例),低频rTMS组以1 Hz低频rTMS刺激右侧背外侧前额叶(r-DLPFC)和顶枕区域,cTBS组以cTBS模式刺激相同位点,疗程2周。治疗前后评估匹兹堡睡眠质量指数(PSQI)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)。结果低频rTMS组及cTBS组治疗前后PSQI、HAMA、HAMD均下降,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);低频rTMS组各量表减分率略高于cTBS组,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论持续θ暴发刺激治疗失眠症疗效不低于低频重复经颅磁刺激。
Objective To compare the differences in the curative effect of low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation(rTMS)and continuousθburst stimulation(cTBS)in the treatment of insomnia.Methods 60 patients with insomnia who were treated in our hospital from January to December 2018 were selected and randomly divided into low-frequency rTMS group(32 cases)and cTBS group(28 cases).The low frequency rTMS group was given the stimulation on the right dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex(r-DLPFC)and parietal occipital region with low frequency rTMS at 1 Hz.The cTBS group was given the stimulation at the same site with cTBS mode;the course of treatment was 2 weeks.The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index(PSQI),Hamilton Anxiety Scale(HAMA),and Hamilton Depression Scale(HAMD)were evaluated before and after treatment.Results The PSQI,HAMA,and HAMD in the low-frequency rTMS group and the cTBS group were decreased before and after treatment(P<0.01).The reduction rate of each scale in the low-frequency rTMS group was slightly higher than that in the cTBS group,but the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).Conclusion The curative effect of continuousθburst stimulation on insomnia is not lower than that of low frequency repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation.
作者
瞿砚舟
吴泓蔚
陈洁
蓝丽康
QU Yanzhou;WU Hongwei;CHEN Jie;LAN Likang(Department of Neurology,Lishui People's Hospital in Zhejiang Province,Lishui 323000,China)
出处
《中国现代医生》
2020年第15期7-10,共4页
China Modern Doctor
基金
浙江省医药卫生科技计划项目(2019RC318)。
关键词
失眠症
重复经颅磁刺激
θ暴发刺激
右侧背外侧前额叶
顶枕区域
Insomnia
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation
θburst stimulation
Right dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex
Parietal occipital region
