Literature DB >> 10071055

A clinical study of motor evoked potentials using a triple stimulation technique.

M R Magistris1, K M Rösler, A Truffert, T Landis, C W Hess.   

Abstract

Amplitudes of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) are usually much smaller than those of motor responses to maximal peripheral nerve stimulation, and show marked variation between normal subjects and from one stimulus to another. Consequently, amplitude measurements have low sensitivity to detect central motor conduction failures due to the broad range of normal values. Since these characteristics are mostly due to varying desynchronization of the descending action potentials, causing different degrees of phase cancellation, we applied the recently developed triple stimulation technique (TST) to study corticospinal conduction to 489 abductor digiti minimi muscles of 271 unselected patients referred for possible corticospinal dysfunction. The TST allows resynchronization of the MEP, and thereby a quantification of the proportion of motor units activated by the transcranial stimulus. TST results were compared with those of conventional MEPs. In 212 of 489 sides, abnormal TST responses suggested conduction failure of various degrees. By contrast, conventional MEPs detected conduction failures in only 77 of 489 sides. The TST was therefore 2.75 times more sensitive than conventional MEPs in disclosing corticospinal conduction failures. When the results of the TST and conventional MEPs were combined, 225 sides were abnormal: 145 sides showed central conduction failure, 13 sides central conduction slowing and 67 sides both conduction failure and slowing. It is concluded that the TST is a valuable addition to the study of MEPs, since it improves detection and gives quantitative information on central conduction failure, an abnormality which appears to be much more frequent than conduction slowing. This new technique will be useful in following the natural course and the benefit of treatments in disorders affecting central motor conduction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10071055     DOI: 10.1093/brain/122.2.265

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain        ISSN: 0006-8950            Impact factor:   13.501


  25 in total

1.  Age and sex differences in human motor cortex input-output characteristics.

Authors:  Julia B Pitcher; Kirstin M Ogston; Timothy S Miles
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 5.182

Review 2.  Assessment and modulation of neural plasticity in rehabilitation with transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Shahid Bashir; Ilan Mizrahi; Kayleen Weaver; Felipe Fregni; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.298

3.  Motor cortical reorganization is present after a single attack of multiple sclerosis devoid of cortico-spinal dysfunction.

Authors:  Audrey Rico; Wafaa Zaaraoui; Jerome Franques; Shahram Attarian; Françoise Reuter; Irina Malikova; Sylviane Confort-Gouny; Elisabeth Soulier; Jean Pouget; Patrick J Cozzone; Jean Pelletier; Jean-Philippe Ranjeva; Bertrand Audoin
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2010-12-17       Impact factor: 2.310

4.  Trial-to-trial size variability of motor-evoked potentials. A study using the triple stimulation technique.

Authors:  Kai M Rösler; Denise M Roth; Michel R Magistris
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Corticospinal output and loss of force during motor fatigue.

Authors:  Kai M Rösler; O Scheidegger; M R Magistris
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-07-02       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Repetitive spinal motor neuron discharges following single transcranial magnetic stimulation: relation to dexterity.

Authors:  W J Z'Graggen; A M Humm; S Oppliger-Bachmann; M Hosang; K M Rösler
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-05-08       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Joint assessment of brain and spinal cord motor tract damage in patients with early RRMS: predominant impact of spinal cord lesions on motor function.

Authors:  Raphaël Chouteau; Benoit Combès; Elise Bannier; Haykel Snoussi; Jean-Christophe Ferré; Christian Barillot; Gilles Edan; Paul Sauleau; Anne Kerbrat
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 4.849

8.  Desynchronization does not contribute to intracortical inhibition and facilitation: a paired-pulse paradigm study combined with TST.

Authors:  L Caranzano; M A Stephan; F R Herrmann; D H Benninger
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 9.  The development and modelling of devices and paradigms for transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Stefan M Goetz; Zhi-De Deng
Journal:  Int Rev Psychiatry       Date:  2017-04-26

Review 10.  Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research.

Authors:  Simone Rossi; Mark Hallett; Paolo M Rossini; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 3.708

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.