| Literature DB >> 32133655 |
Kristine Bennedsgaard1, Lise Ventzel1, Peter Grafe2, Jenny Tigerholm3, Andreas C Themistocleous4, David L Bennett4, Hatice Tankisi5, Nanna B Finnerup1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cold allodynia is often seen in the acute phase of oxaliplatin treatment, but the underlying pathophysiology remains unclear.Entities:
Keywords: allodynia; nerve excitability testing; neuropathy; oxaliplatin toxicity; potassium channel dysfunction; sodium channel dysfunction
Year: 2020 PMID: 32133655 PMCID: PMC7318596 DOI: 10.1002/mus.26852
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Muscle Nerve ISSN: 0148-639X Impact factor: 3.217
Motor nerve excitability testing
| Baseline (n = 7) | Follow‐up (n = 7) | Baseline vs follow‐up ( | Cooling ( | Follow‐up vs cooling | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skin temperature (°C) | 33.7 (1.0) | 34.3 (1.3) | .31 | 25.6 (2.7) |
|
| Latency (ms) | 7.0 (1.2) | 6.8 (0.8) | .16 | 7.1 (0.9) |
|
| Stimulus‐response and strength‐duration properties | |||||
| Stimulus (mA): 50% max CMAP | 6.6 (2.2) | 7.8 (2.9) | .24 | 6.4 (1.9) |
|
| SDTC (ms) | 0.5 (0.1) | 0.4 (0.1) | .051 | 0.5 (0.2) | .50 |
| Rheobase (mA) | 4.3 (1.7) | 5.3 (2.2) | .16 | 4.7 (1.8) | .29 |
| Threshold electrotonus | |||||
| TEd (10‐20 ms) | 68.1 (4.1) | 68.1 (5.0) | .92 | 64.6 (4.6) |
|
| TEd (peak) | 66.4 (3.5) | 66.4 (4.6) | .89 | 64.5 (4.1) | .12 |
| TEd (40‐60 ms) | 47.8 (3.5) | 48.5 (3.4) | .45 | 54.8 (3.3) |
|
| TEd (90‐100 ms) | 43.4 (3.5) | 44.5 (4.1) | .099 | 42.7 (5.8) | .35 |
| S2 accommodation | 23.1 (3.2) | 21.8 (3.3) | .099 | 21.8 (5.5) | .94 |
| TEd20 (10‐20 ms) | 37.4 (2.8) | 37.0 (3.1) | .64 | 32.4 (3.3) |
|
| TEd20 (peak) | 38.4 (2.7) | 38.6 (3.4) | .84 | 34.8 (3.7) |
|
| TEd40 (accomodation) | 23.5 (2.7) | 22.1 (3.1) | .066 | 20.7 (5.2) | .56 |
| TEh (10‐20 ms) | −80.1 (8.4) | −79.6 (7.0) | .70 | −74.8 (10.6) | .086 |
| TEh (20‐40 ms) | −101.5 (12.3) | −99.6 (11.9) | .40 | −88.4 (15.9) |
|
| TEh (90‐100 ms) | −138.9 (21.9) | −135.4 (21.5) | .31 | −110.1 (24.1) |
|
| TEh (peak, ‐70%) | −290.0 (40.9) | −279.8 (39.4) |
| −246.5 (47.1) |
|
| Accommodation half‐time (ms) | 36.5 (4.0) | 35.9 (2.8) | .36 | 54.2 (8.2) |
|
| Recovery cycle | |||||
| Relative refractory period (ms) | 2.9 (0.3) | 3.6 (0.3) |
| 5.8 (1.9) | ― |
| Superexcitability (%) | −19.2 (3.1) | −5.7 (7.0) |
| −2.7 (5.0) |
|
| Subexcitability (%) | 17.2 (5.4) | 23.3 (6.9) |
| 20.8 (8.9) | .23 |
| Refractoriness at 2.5 ms (%) | 16.7 (12.6) | 37.5 (16.0) |
| ― | ― |
Note. Values are presented as mean (standard deviation). All significant P values are indicated in bold.
Abbreviations: CMAP, compound motor action potential; max, maximal; SDTC, strength‐duration time constant; TEd/TEh, threshold electrotonus depolarization/hyperpolarization.
Calculated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, otherwise paired t test was used.
Figure 1Nerve excitability testing for the motor nerve. A) Strength‐duration time constant, B) threshold electrotonus, and C) recovery cycle. Dark line: baseline; gray line: follow‐up without cooling; blue (triangle) line: follow‐up with cooling. Filled lines: means; dashed lines: standard errors [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 2Afterpotentials after maximum CMAP at baseline, follow‐up, and follow‐up with cooling. The number of afterpotentials increased with cooling. Only six of the seven patients are shown due to excess voluntary activity in one patient. CMAP, compound muscle action potential; OXP, oxaliplatin