OBJECTIVE: To characterize various aspects of F-wave in a healthy population and establish normative data for future clinical use. METHODS: A total of 100 healthy volunteers underwent sensory and motor nerve conduction studies of the ulnar and tibial nerves, including F waves elicited by 32 stimuli. RESULTS: The F-wave measurements (mean +/- SD for ulnar vs tibial nerve) consisted of persistence (83 +/- 19 vs 97 +/- 5%), minimum, mean and maximum latencies (26.5 +/- 2.1, 28.1 +/- 2.2, and 30.4 +/- 2.3 vs 47.0 +/- 4.1, 49.6 +/- 4.4, and 52.5 +/- 4.4 ms), minimum, mean and maximum F-wave conduction velocities (FWCV) (55.0 +/- 2.7, 60.0 +/- 2.3, and 64.0 +/- 3.0 vs 49.0 +/- 2.9, 52.2 +/- 3.1, and 55.5 +/- 3.4 m/s), chronodispersion (3.9 +/- 0.9 vs 5.5 +/- 1.4 ms), mean amplitude (347 +/- 152 vs 384 +/- 148 microV) and mean duration (8.6 +/- 2.9 vs 13.0 +/- 4.5 ms). Additional measures, registered by electronic averaging, included latency (27.4 +/- 2.3 vs 48.6 +/- 4.7 ms), duration (9.6 +/- 2.2 vs 16.4 +/- 4.2 ms), and amplitude (299 +/- 156 vs 208 +/- 116 microV). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a height nomogram serves well as an acceptable means to adjust F latencies for the limb length. In addition to the commonly used minimal latency, maximal FWCV, and persistence, clinically relevant measures with a narrow variability includes mean and maximal latencies, chronodispersion, and mean duration. In particular, mean latency obtained with 10 stimuli gave accurate results either for group or individual analysis. SIGNIFICANCE: The data help establish an adequate manner of recording F-wave latencies in clinical evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize various aspects of F-wave in a healthy population and establish normative data for future clinical use. METHODS: A total of 100 healthy volunteers underwent sensory and motor nerve conduction studies of the ulnar and tibial nerves, including F waves elicited by 32 stimuli. RESULTS: The F-wave measurements (mean +/- SD for ulnar vs tibial nerve) consisted of persistence (83 +/- 19 vs 97 +/- 5%), minimum, mean and maximum latencies (26.5 +/- 2.1, 28.1 +/- 2.2, and 30.4 +/- 2.3 vs 47.0 +/- 4.1, 49.6 +/- 4.4, and 52.5 +/- 4.4 ms), minimum, mean and maximum F-wave conduction velocities (FWCV) (55.0 +/- 2.7, 60.0 +/- 2.3, and 64.0 +/- 3.0 vs 49.0 +/- 2.9, 52.2 +/- 3.1, and 55.5 +/- 3.4 m/s), chronodispersion (3.9 +/- 0.9 vs 5.5 +/- 1.4 ms), mean amplitude (347 +/- 152 vs 384 +/- 148 microV) and mean duration (8.6 +/- 2.9 vs 13.0 +/- 4.5 ms). Additional measures, registered by electronic averaging, included latency (27.4 +/- 2.3 vs 48.6 +/- 4.7 ms), duration (9.6 +/- 2.2 vs 16.4 +/- 4.2 ms), and amplitude (299 +/- 156 vs 208 +/- 116 microV). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a height nomogram serves well as an acceptable means to adjust F latencies for the limb length. In addition to the commonly used minimal latency, maximal FWCV, and persistence, clinically relevant measures with a narrow variability includes mean and maximal latencies, chronodispersion, and mean duration. In particular, mean latency obtained with 10 stimuli gave accurate results either for group or individual analysis. SIGNIFICANCE: The data help establish an adequate manner of recording F-wave latencies in clinical evaluation.
Authors: Marcio Luiz Escorcio Bezerra; José Luiz Pedroso; Pedro Braga-Neto; Agessandro Abrahao; Marcus Vinicius Cristino de Albuquerque; Franklin Roberto Pereira Borges; Maria Luiza Saraiva-Pereira; Laura Bannach Jardim; Nadia Iandoli de Oliveira Braga; Gilberto Mastrocola Manzano; Orlando G P Barsottini Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.847