Effect of iTBS and rTMS Combined with Robotic Rehabilitation on Ambulation and Lower Extremity Motor Function in Chronic SCI Patients

At four weeks, both active-stimulation groups improved more than the sham group on selected walking and lower-extremity measures. No intervention-related adverse events were reported, but this was a small single-center trial and the two active protocols did not differ from one another.

Kalem Ozgen AN, Yardimci G, Yilmaz B.
American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · Publication date: 2026-10-07
Added to site: 2026-10-12
DOI: 10.1097/phm.0000000000003167

Published online October 7, 2026. Added to Neurofeedback.com October 12, 2026 after abstract review.

Modalities

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, Intermittent theta-burst stimulation, Robotic rehabilitation

Clinical focus

Chronic incomplete spinal cord injury, Walking and lower-extremity function

Population

Adults with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury

Sample

30 participants randomized 1:1:1 to high-frequency rTMS, iTBS or sham iTBS

Intervention / method

Each stimulation condition was paired with the same robotic rehabilitation program; assessments occurred at baseline, after treatment and at four-week follow-up

Comparator

Sham iTBS plus robotic rehabilitation

Clinician summary

Median four-week changes for rTMS, iTBS and sham were 4.0, 5.0 and 0.0 for LEMS; 3.0, 5.0 and 0.0 for SCIM III; and 6.6, 5.7 and 0.7 for the 10-meter walk test. False-discovery-adjusted q values were 0.050, 0.050 and 0.046. No active-active difference or intervention-related adverse event was reported.

How to interpret the findings

The trial included only 30 participants at one center, the abstract does not report allocation-specific attrition, baseline balance, masking details, exact treatment dose, confidence intervals or outcomes beyond four weeks, and differences versus sham varied by outcome. Robotic rehabilitation was a shared cointervention.

Equipment and disclosures

High-frequency rTMS and iTBS were combined with robotic rehabilitation. The checked abstract does not identify device manufacturers, and this record does not attribute equipment to BrainMaster.

The PubMed record states that there were no potential conflicts of interest. Funding was not stated in the checked abstract or index record.

Related evidence

Compare findings from the same clinical area, including mixed results.