摘要目的:探讨高频重复经颅磁刺激（hrTMS）治疗丘脑痛的短期临床疗效及安全性。方法:前瞻性选择自2022年12月至2023年8月安徽医科大学附属安庆医学中心神经内科收治的41例接受hrTMS治疗的丘脑梗死后中枢性神经痛患者进行研究，依据刺激部位的不同将患者分为干预健侧次级感觉皮层（S2）治疗组（S2组， n=21）与干预健侧初级运动皮层（M1）治疗组（M1组， n=20）。分别于治疗前、伪刺激治疗后第1周末及有效刺激治疗后第1、2、3周末时，对2组患者进行简易McGill问卷评分，应用肌电诱发电位仪监测诱发电位N100波幅，同时观察治疗周期内不良反应发生情况。 结果:（1）与治疗前比较，有效刺激治疗后第2、3周末时S2组患者的感觉项评分、情绪项评分、视觉模拟评分（VAS）、现有痛评分均明显降低，差异均有统计学意义（ P<0.05）。与治疗前比较，有效刺激治疗后第2周末时M1组患者的感觉项评分、VAS评分、现有痛评分均明显降低，第3周末时M1组患者的感觉项评分、情绪项评分、VAS评分、现有痛评分均明显降低，差异均有统计学意义（ P<0.05）。有效刺激治疗后第3周末时，与M1组比较，S2组患者的感觉项评分、情绪项评分、VAS评分、现有痛评分均明显降低[（5.35±0.54）分 vs.（4.86±0.74）分、（3.55±0.69）分 vs.（3.14±0.57）分、（5.50±0.69）分 vs.（5.00±0.78）分、（2.20±0.42）分 vs.（1.81±0.41）分]，差异均有统计学意义（ P<0.05）。（2）与治疗前比较，有效刺激治疗后第2、3周末时S2组、M1组患者的N100波幅均明显升高，差异均有统计学意义（ P<0.05）。有效刺激治疗后第3周末时，与M1组比较，S2组患者的N100波幅明显升高（3.00±0.65 vs. 3.43±0.60），差异有统计学意义（ P<0.05）。（3）2组患者治疗周期内均无癫痫发作、头皮烧灼等不良反应发生，且头痛、耳鸣发生率的差异均无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。 结论:hrTMS刺激健侧S2区或M1区均可有效改善丘脑痛患者的短期疼痛程度且无明显副作用，其中刺激S2区的镇痛效果更好。

abstractsObjective:To explore the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (hrTMS) in thalamic pain.Methods:A prospective study was performed; 41 patients with thalamic pain who received hrTMS in Department of Neurology, Anqing Medical Center Affiliated to Anhui Medical University from December 2022 to August 2023 were selected. According to different stimulation sites, these patients were divided into S2 group (intervening secondary sensory cortex of the unaffected side, n=21) and M1 group (intervening primary motor cortex of the unaffected side, n=20). Before treatment, at the 1 st weekend after pseudo-stimulation treatment and at the 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd weeks after effective stimulation treatment, short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) was performed, and N100 amplitude was monitored by myoelectric evoked potentiometer; adverse reactions during treatment cycles were observed. Results:(1) Compared with those before treatment, scores of sensory item, emotional item and visual analogue scale (VAS), and present pain intensity in S2 group were significantly decreased at the 2 nd and 3 rd weeks after effective stimulation treatment ( P<0.05). Compared with those before treatment, scores of sensory item and VAS, and present pain intensity in M1 group were significantly decreased at the 2 nd weeks after effective stimulation treatment, and scores of sensory item, emotional item and VAS, and present pain intensity in M1 group were significantly decreased at the 3 rd weeks after effective stimulation treatment( P<0.05). At the 3 rd weeks after effective stimulation treatment, compared with the M1 group, the S2 group had significantly decreased scores of sensory item, emotional item, and VAS, and present pain intensity (5.35±0.54 vs. 4.86±0.74; 3.55±0.69 vs. 3.14±0.57; 5.50±0.69 vs. 5.00±0.78; 2.20±0.42 vs. 1.81±0.41, P<0.05). (2) Compared with those before treatment, N100 amplitude in S2 group and M1 group was significantly increased at the 2 nd and 3 rd weeks after effective stimulation treatment ( P<0.05). At the 3 rd weeks after effective stimulation treatment, the S2 group had significantly higher N100 amplitude than the M1 group (3.43±0.60 vs. 3.00±0.65, P<0.05). (3) No adverse reactions such as seizure or scalp burning occurred in the 2 groups during the treatment cycles, without significant difference in headache or tinnitus incidences ( P>0.05). Conclusion:The hrTMS on secondary sensory cortex and primary motor cortex of the unaffected side can relief the short-term pain intensity in patients with thalamic pain, without obvious side effects; and hrTMS on secondary sensory cortex enjoys better effect.