OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic value of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in the diagnosis of lumbosacral cord disorders. METHODS: MEPs in 37 patients with sensory and motor deficits in the lower limbs were studied. MRI demonstrated spinal cord involvement in 10 patients and cauda equina lesions in 27 patients. A double determination of central motor conduction time (CMCT), calculated as the difference between the latencies of responses evoked by cortical and paravertebral magnetic stimulation and as the difference between the latency of cortical MEP and the total peripheral conduction time calculated from the F-wave latency, enabled discrimination between a delay along the proximal root and a delay along the corticospinal tract. An abnormality of the CMCT calculated with both techniques is indicative of central motor pathway damage, whereas an abnormality of the CMCT calculated from the latency of responses evoked by paravertebral magnetic stimulation associated with a normal CMCT calculated from the F-wave latency suggests a cauda equina lesion. RESULTS: Neurophysiologic findings strongly correlated with the lesion site documented by MRI (cauda equina or lumbosacral cord). All patients with MR evidence of cord involvement had an abnormality of CMCT calculated with both methods, suggesting a lesion of central motor pathways. Clinical examination often failed to document a spinal cord lesion, suggesting pure peripheral involvement in 5 of the 10 patients with MR evidence of cord lesion. CONCLUSION: Motor evoked potential recording is an accurate and easily applicable test for the diagnosis of lumbosacral spinal cord lesions.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic value of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in the diagnosis of lumbosacral cord disorders. METHODS: MEPs in 37 patients with sensory and motor deficits in the lower limbs were studied. MRI demonstrated spinal cord involvement in 10 patients and cauda equina lesions in 27 patients. A double determination of central motor conduction time (CMCT), calculated as the difference between the latencies of responses evoked by cortical and paravertebral magnetic stimulation and as the difference between the latency of cortical MEP and the total peripheral conduction time calculated from the F-wave latency, enabled discrimination between a delay along the proximal root and a delay along the corticospinal tract. An abnormality of the CMCT calculated with both techniques is indicative of central motor pathway damage, whereas an abnormality of the CMCT calculated from the latency of responses evoked by paravertebral magnetic stimulation associated with a normal CMCT calculated from the F-wave latency suggests a cauda equina lesion. RESULTS: Neurophysiologic findings strongly correlated with the lesion site documented by MRI (cauda equina or lumbosacral cord). All patients with MR evidence of cord involvement had an abnormality of CMCT calculated with both methods, suggesting a lesion of central motor pathways. Clinical examination often failed to document a spinal cord lesion, suggesting pure peripheral involvement in 5 of the 10 patients with MR evidence of cord lesion. CONCLUSION: Motor evoked potential recording is an accurate and easily applicable test for the diagnosis of lumbosacral spinal cord lesions.
Authors: Michèle Hubli; John L K Kramer; Catherine R Jutzeler; Jan Rosner; Julio C Furlan; Keith E Tansey; Martin Schubert Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: S Groppa; A Oliviero; A Eisen; A Quartarone; L G Cohen; V Mall; A Kaelin-Lang; T Mima; S Rossi; G W Thickbroom; P M Rossini; U Ziemann; J Valls-Solé; H R Siebner Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2012-02-19 Impact factor: 3.708