Literature DB >> 2233853

A comparison of magnetic and electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves.

R K Olney1, Y T So, D S Goodin, M J Aminoff.   

Abstract

We compared magnetic stimulation using different coil designs (2 rounded coils and a butterfly-prototype coil) with electrical stimulation of the median and ulnar nerves in 5 normal subjects. Using magnetic stimulation we were able to record technically satisfactory maximal sensory and motor responses only with the butterfly coil. Submaximal electrical stimuli preferentially activated sensory rather than motor axons, but submaximal magnetic stimuli did not. The onset latency, amplitude, area and duration of responses elicited electrically or magnetically with the butterfly coil during routine sensory and motor nerve conduction studies were similar, and motor and sensory conduction velocities were comparable when studied over long segments of nerve. However, the motor conduction velocities with magnetic and electrical stimulation differed by as much as 18 m/sec in the across-elbow segment of ulnar nerve. Thus, recent developments in magnetic stimulator design have improved the focality of the stimulus, but the present butterfly coil design cannot replace electrical stimulation for the detection of focal changes in nerve conduction velocity at common entrapment sites, such as in the across-elbow segment of the ulnar nerve.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2233853     DOI: 10.1002/mus.880131012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Muscle Nerve        ISSN: 0148-639X            Impact factor:   3.217


  9 in total

1.  Magnetic and electrical stimulation of undulating nerve fibres: a simulation study.

Authors:  V Schnabel; J J Struijk
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  Transmembrane potential generated by a magnetically induced transverse electric field in a cylindrical axonal model.

Authors:  Hui Ye; Marija Cotic; Michael G Fehlings; Peter L Carlen
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Magnetic versus electrical stimulation in the interpolation twitch technique of elbow flexors.

Authors:  Sofia I Lampropoulou; Alexander V Nowicky; Louise Marston
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 2.988

Review 4.  Determining the potential sites of neural adaptation to cross-education: implications for the cross-education of muscle strength.

Authors:  Ashlyn K Frazer; Alan J Pearce; Glyn Howatson; Kevin Thomas; Stuart Goodall; Dawson J Kidgell
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 3.078

5.  Shielding effects of myelin sheath on axolemma depolarization under transverse electric field stimulation.

Authors:  Hui Ye; Jeffrey Ng
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Excitatory and inhibitory responses to cervical root magnetic stimulation in healthy subjects.

Authors:  E Ruiu; J Valls-Sole
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol Pract       Date:  2021-10-30

7.  Checklist on the Quality of the Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation (rPMS) Methods in Research: An International Delphi Study.

Authors:  Cyril Schneider; Andrea Zangrandi; Nico Sollmann; Michaela Veronika Bonfert; Louis-David Beaulieu
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 4.003

8.  Modulation of sensorimotor cortex by repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Eugen Gallasch; Monica Christova; Alexander Kunz; Dietmar Rafolt; Stefan Golaszewski
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Nerve Stimulation (rPMS) as Adjuvant Therapy Reduces Skeletal Muscle Reflex Activity.

Authors:  Volker R Zschorlich; Martin Hillebrecht; Tammam Tanjour; Fengxue Qi; Frank Behrendt; Timo Kirschstein; Rüdiger Köhling
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 4.003

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.