| Literature DB >> 30215006 |
Mar Guasp1, Alejandro A Köhler2, Michela Campolo1, Jordi Casanova-Molla1, Josep Valls-Sole1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Small fiber polyneuropathy (SFP) is a common heralding clinical manifestation of damage to the nervous system in patients with familial amyloidosis. The diagnosis of SFP is a significant factor in the decision to treat a previously asymptomatic gene carrier, as treatment would prevent irreversible nerve damage. This requires detection of the earliest but unequivocal signs of peripheral nerve involvement. CASE REPORT: We present the case of a young female who was diagnosed of SFP, supported by data from quantitative sensory testing. She had preserved sensory nerve action potentials in the distalmost nerves of her feet and recordable nociceptive evoked potentials. She was successfully transplanted the liver from a previously healthy donor, and recovered fully of her symptoms and signs. Improvement was documented with repeated psychophysical and electrodiagnostic testing in the course of 4 years after transplantation. SIGNIFICANCE: This case illustrates the utility of psychophysical testing to support the diagnosis of SFP.Entities:
Keywords: Familial amyloidosis; Liver transplantation; Nociceptive evoked potentials; Psychophysical testing; Quantitative sensory testing; Small fiber polyneuropathy
Year: 2018 PMID: 30215006 PMCID: PMC6133776 DOI: 10.1016/j.cnp.2018.01.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Pract ISSN: 2467-981X
Fig. 1Sensory nerve action potentials of the medial plantar nerve in all four examinations. Stimuli were applied to the sole of the foot and recordings were obtained from the medial retromalleolar site. Note the integrity of large sensory nerve fibers in the distalmost nerve segments. SNAP: Sensory Nerve Action Potential.
Fig. 2Contact heat evoked potentials (CHEPs) recorded from Cz, and sudomotor skin response (SSR) recorded from the right hand, to leg stimulation. Note the relative reduction in amplitude of CHEPs and SSR in the second with respect to the first pre-transplantation exams, and their relative increase in the two post-transplantation exams.
Data in °C on quantitative thermal threshold obtained in the two pre-transplantation and the two post-transplantation examinations. Note the clear improvement in the post-transplantation evaluations in all domains and regions explored.
| Stimulation site | June 2012 | Sept 2012 | Dec 2014 | Dec 2016 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ventral forearm | HDT | 36.2 | 36.7 | 34.9 | 33.8 |
| HPT | 41.2 | 41.6 | 41.8 | 42.3 | |
| CDT | 29.7 | 29.2 | 30.1 | 30.3 | |
| CPT | – | – | – | 14.6 | |
| Medial distal leg | HDT | 42.1 | 43.5 | 38.7 | 37.7 |
| HPT | 48.1 | 48.6 | 41.5 | 42.7 | |
| CDT | 25.2 | 24.8 | 29.4 | 29.7 | |
| CPT | 23.4 | 23.7 | – | – | |
HDT: Heat Detection Threshold; HPT: Heat Pain Threshold; CDT: Cold Detection Threshold; CPT: Cold Pain Threshold.
Fig. 3Dynamic thermal testing in the forearm (left side) and leg (right side). The upper graph shows the temperature stimulus: a slow increase and decrease slopes at 0.5 °C/s, together with the scale of temperature. The subsequent 4 recordings in each column show the responses given by the patient to the stimulus, using an electronic visual analogic scale, represented to the left of the first recording and applicable to all recordings. Labels show the mean value of temperature and time at detection threshold.