UNLABELLED: The objective of this study was to evaluate if the ratio of ulnar sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) over compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitudes (USMAR) would help in the distinction between ganglionopathy (GNP) and polyneuropathy (PNP). METHODS: We reviewed the nerve conductions studies and electromyography (EMG) of 18 GNP patients, 33 diabetic PNP patients and 56 controls. GNP was defined by simultaneous nerve conduction studies (NCS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abnormalities. PNP was defined by usual clinical and NCS criteria. We used ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test and ROC curve analysis to compare ulnar SNAP and CMAP, as well as USMAR in the groups. RESULTS: Ulnar CMAP amplitudes were similar between GNP x PNP x Controls (p=0.253), but ulnar SNAP amplitudes (1.6±3.2 x 11.9±9.1 × 45.7±24.7) and USMAR values (0.3±0.3 × 1.5±0.9 × 4.6±2.2) were significantly different. A USMAR threshold of 0.71 was able to differentiate GNP and PNP (94.4% sensitivity and 90.9% specificity). CONCLUSIONS: USMAR is a practical and reliable tool for the differentiation between GNP and PNP.
UNLABELLED: The objective of this study was to evaluate if the ratio of ulnar sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) over compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitudes (USMAR) would help in the distinction between ganglionopathy (GNP) and polyneuropathy (PNP). METHODS: We reviewed the nerve conductions studies and electromyography (EMG) of 18 GNP patients, 33 diabetic PNPpatients and 56 controls. GNP was defined by simultaneous nerve conduction studies (NCS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abnormalities. PNP was defined by usual clinical and NCS criteria. We used ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test and ROC curve analysis to compare ulnar SNAP and CMAP, as well as USMAR in the groups. RESULTS: Ulnar CMAP amplitudes were similar between GNP x PNP x Controls (p=0.253), but ulnar SNAP amplitudes (1.6±3.2 x 11.9±9.1 × 45.7±24.7) and USMAR values (0.3±0.3 × 1.5±0.9 × 4.6±2.2) were significantly different. A USMAR threshold of 0.71 was able to differentiate GNP and PNP (94.4% sensitivity and 90.9% specificity). CONCLUSIONS: USMAR is a practical and reliable tool for the differentiation between GNP and PNP.
Authors: Raphael Fernandes Casseb; Jean Levi Ribeiro de Paiva; Lucas Melo Teixeira Branco; Alberto Rolim Muro Martinez; Fabiano Reis; José Carlos de Lima-Junior; Gabriela Castellano; Marcondes Cavalcante França Junior Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Panagiotis Zis; Marios Hadjivassiliou; Ptolemaios Georgios Sarrigiannis; Alexander St John Edward Barker; Dasappaiah Ganesh Rao Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 2.708