Major ozonated autohemotherapy promotes the recovery of upper limb motor function in patients with acute cerebral infarction

Abstract

Major ozonated autohemotherapy is classically used in treating ischemic disorder of the lower limbs. In the present study, we performed major ozonated autohemotherapy treatment in patients with acute cerebral infarction, and assessed outcomes according to the U.S. National Institutes of Health Stroke Score, Modified Rankin Scale, and transcranial magnetic stimulation motor-evoked potential. Compared with the control group, the clinical total effective rate and the cortical potential rise rate of the upper limbs were significantly higher, the central motor conduction time of upper limb was significantly shorter, and the upper limb motor-evoked potential amplitude was significantly increased, in the ozone group. In the ozone group, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Score was positively correlated with the central motor conduction time and the motor-evoked potential amplitude of the upper limb. Central motor conduction time and motor-evoked potential amplitude of the upper limb may be effective indicators of motor-evoked potentials to assess upper limb motor function in cerebral infarct patients. Furthermore, major ozonated autohemotherapy may promote motor function recovery of the upper limb in patients with acute cerebral infarction.

Keywords: National Institutes of Health Stroke Score; amplitude; central motor conduction time; cerebral infarction; clinical practice; evoked potential; grants-supported paper; motor; motor function; neural regeneration; neuroregenertion; ozone; photographs-containing paper; upper limb paralysis; upper limbs.

Figure 1

Central motor conduction time (CMCT) of upper (A) and lower (B) limbs in acute cerebral infarction patients before and after treatment. (A) ^aP < 0.05, vs. control group (n = 18) for the CMCT of the upper limb (n = 20). (B) ^aP > 0.05, vs. control group (n = 18) for the CMCT of the lower limb (n = 20; multivariate analysis of variance).

Figure 2

Comparison of cortical motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude of the upper (A) and lower (B) limbs in acute cerebral infarction patients before and after treatment. (A) P < 0.05 for the comparison of cortical MEP amplitude of the upper limb in ozone group (n = 18) and control group (n = 20). (B) P > 0.05 for the comparison of cortical MEP amplitude of the lower limb in the ozone group (n = 18) and the control group (n = 20; paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank sum test).

Figure 3

Analysis of correlation of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) to central motor conduction time (CMCT) and motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude. NIHSS score improvement rate was calculated as the (NIHSS scores before treatment – NIHSS scores after treatment)/NIHSS scores before treatment × 100%. The CMCT improvement rate was calculated as the (CMCT before treatment – CMCT after treatment)/CMCT before treatment × 100%. The MEP amplitude improvement rate was calculated as the (MEP amplitude before treatment – MEP amplitude after treatment)/MEP amplitude before treatment × 100%. (A) Scatter graph of the relationship between NIHSS improvement rate and the CMCT improvement rate of the upper limbs. The NIHSS improvement rate was positively correlated with the CMCT improvement rate (r = 0.78, P < 0.05). (B) Scatter graph of the relationship between the NIHSS improvement rate and the CMCT improvement rate of the lower limbs. There was no correlation between these values (P > 0.05). (C) Scatter graph of the relationship between the NIHSS improvement rate and the MEP amplitude improvement rate of the upper limbs. The NIHSS improvement rate was positively correlated with the MEP amplitude improvement rate (r = 0.85, P < 0.05). (D) Scatter graph of the relationship between the NIHSS improvement rate and the MEP amplitude improvement rate of the lower limbs. There was no correlation between these values (P > 0.05, n = 38). Spearman rank correlation analysis was performed.