Literature DB >> 2031473

Motor versus somatosensory evoked potential changes after acute experimental spinal cord injury in rats.

M Zileli1, J Schramm.   

Abstract

In this study, averaged cortical somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) after sciatic nerve stimulation, and lower extremity muscle responses after motor cortex stimulation (MEP) were compared in rats. 10 animals served as light (25 g-cm) and 10 animals as severe (80 g-cm) acute spinal cord injury group after weight dropping trauma. After the initial loss of components, both SEP and MEP recovered in most cases in the light injury group. In the severe injury group, however, no recovery was observed in cortical SEPs, while the muscle MEP recovered in some animals. Light spinal cord injury had little effect on muscle MEPs and caused a paradoxical amplitude increase in some MEP recordings. Latency values of muscle MEPs did not show great changes after either kind of injury, while cortical SEP latency was considerably delayed. In this model cortical SEPs were more sensitive to light spinal cord injury than muscle MEPs after single electrical cortical stimuli. Severe spinal cord injury caused amplitude changes or loss of waves from both SEP and MEP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2031473     DOI: 10.1007/bf01418522

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)        ISSN: 0001-6268            Impact factor:   2.216


  26 in total

1.  Electrospinogram and spinal and cortical evoked potentials in experimental spinal cord trauma.

Authors:  G Morrison; R J Lorig; J Brodkey; F E Nulsen
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1975-12       Impact factor: 5.115

2.  Electrophysiological changes in experimental spinal cord trauma.

Authors:  J Benezech; E S Flamm; P Frerebeau; J M Privat; C Gros
Journal:  Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien)       Date:  1979

3.  Considerations for safety in the use of extracranial stimulation for motor evoked potentials.

Authors:  W F Agnew; D B McCreery
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 4.  The pathophysiological response to spinal cord injury. The current status of related research.

Authors:  J L Osterholm
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1974-01       Impact factor: 5.115

5.  Spinal electrogram of the cat. I. Study of origin by degeneration and ischemia.

Authors:  H Brust-Carmona; H Levitan; H Kasprzak; E L Gasteiger
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1968-08

6.  Scope of a technique for electrical stimulation of human brain, spinal cord, and muscle.

Authors:  P A Merton; D K Hill; H B Morton; C D Marsden
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1982-09-11       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Clinical evaluation of conduction time measurements in central motor pathways using magnetic stimulation of human brain.

Authors:  A T Barker; I L Freeston; R Jabinous; J A Jarratt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-06-07       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Experimental investigation on the spinal cord evoked injury potential.

Authors:  J Schramm; R Krause; T Shigeno; M Brock
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 5.115

9.  Spinal evoked potential in the cat: effects of asphyxia, strychnine, cord section and compression.

Authors:  R Q Cracco; B Evans
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1978-02

10.  Motor evoked potential in cats with acute spinal cord injury.

Authors:  W Levy; M McCaffrey; D York
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 4.654

View more
  2 in total

1.  Surgery of intramedullary spinal cord tumors.

Authors:  M Zileli; E Coşkun; N Ozdamar; I Ovül; E Tunçbay; K Oner; N Oktar
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Long-term changes in spinal cord evoked potentials after compression spinal cord injury in the rat.

Authors:  Ivo Vanický; Tomás Ondrejcák; Miriam Ondrejcáková; Igor Sulla; Ján Gálik
Journal:  Cell Mol Neurobiol       Date:  2006-05-12       Impact factor: 5.046

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.