| Objective:In this study,depressed patients after ischemic stroke were selected for the study,and a randomized controlled trial was used.The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of rTMS in combination with abdominal manipulation in depressed patients after stroke.Methods:According to the criteria for inclusion and exclusion,90 patients with depression after ischemic stroke were recruited and randomly allocated 30 cases each to groups A,B and C.Group A was treated with rTMS,group B with abdominal manipulation and group C with abdominal manipulation combined with rTMS.Comparative analysis of patients by gender,age and disease duration to identify differences and comparability.Patients were assessed before and after 3 weeks of treatment using the Hamilton Depression Scale(HAMD),the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale(NIHSS)and the Barthel Index(BI).The data was statistically evaluated with a statistical software SPSS of 26.0 to monitor clinical efficacy.Results:1.There was no statutory significance in the comparison of sex,age and duration of illness among the three groups(P>0.05),and the differences were comparable.There were no statistically significant differences(P>0.05)in HAMD,NIHSS and Barthel scores between the three groups before and after treatment,and they were similar.2.Comparison of HAMD scores:After 3 weeks of treatment,HAMD scores were both below pre-treatment levels in all three groups,with a significant difference between groups(P<0.01).When comparing groups,HAMD scores were slightly better in group C than in groups A and B.When compared with group A,there was no statistically significant difference in group B(P>0.05)and a positive significant difference in group C(P<0.01).There was a significant difference in performance between Group B and Group C(p<0.01).3.Comparison of HAMD efficacy:at the end of 3 weeks of treatment,the efficacy of HAMD was statistically and significantly different in all three groups(P<0.01).In a group comparison,group C was significantly more effective than groups A and B.Relative to the efficacy of group A,the efficacy of group B was not statistically significant(P>0.05),whereas the efficacy of group C was statistically significant(P<0.05).Group B was statistically significant compared to group C(p<0.05).4.Comparison of NIHSS scores:After 3 weeks of a medical treatment,the NIHSS scores were significantly below the pretreatment level in all three groups,and the comparison between the groups was significant(P<0.01).In a group comparison,Group C outperformed both Group A and Group B.Compared to Group A,Group B did not have a statistically significant difference(p>0.05),while Group C had a statistically significant difference(p<0.05),with the difference between Group B and Group C being significant(p<0.01).5.Comparison of Barthel score:After 3 weeks,Barthel scores improved in all three groups compared to pre-treatment scores,with significant differences between groups(p<0.01).When comparing groups,the outcome in both group A and group B was lower than in group C.Compared to group A,group B did not have a significantly statistical difference(p>0.05),while group C had a statistically significant difference(p<0.01),and the difference between group B and group C was significant(p<0.01).Conclusion:Under the premise of patients receiving routine rehabilitation training,abdominal manipulation combined with rTMS is better than single abdominal manipulation and rTMS in improving patients’ depression symptoms,degree of neurological impairment and ability of daily living.In terms of the clinical efficacy of HAMD score after treatment,the clinical efficacy of abdominal manipulation combined with rTMS was significantly better than that of abdominal manipulation or rTMS alone.There was no significant difference in the improvement of depression,neurological impairment,and ability of daily living between the abdominal manipulation and rTMS groups. |
PDF Full Text Request