We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Single fiber EMG and repetitive nerve stimulation of the same extensor digitorum communis muscle in myasthenia gravis.
Clinical Neurophysiology : Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology 2001 Februrary
OBJECTIVE: To compare voluntary single fiber electromyography (v-SFEMG) and repetitive nerve stimulation (RNS) at the same extensor digitorum communis (EDC) muscle in myasthenia gravis (MG).
METHODS: We examined v-SFEMG and RNS successively on the same day in the same EDC muscle. We studied 45 examinations of both v-SFEMG and RNS in 29 patients suffering from MG, together with examinations of RNS in 30 control subjects.
RESULTS: Forty-one of 45 (91%) v-SFEMGs showed abnormal results, whereas only 18/45 (40%) RNSs showed an abnormal decrement. The percentage of decrement showed similar correlations with 3 v-SFEMG parameters: percentage of abnormal pairs, percentage of blocking pairs, and the mean MCD value. Examinations showing a significant decrement in RNS had at least 60%, and usually no less than 90%, abnormal pairs, and 10-80% blocking pairs. Some muscles without a decrement had up to 50% blocking pairs.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the blocking phenomenon observed in v-SFEMG is not a direct counterpart of the decrement in RNS. This must be partly because fibers contributing to the decrement are continuously blocked during voluntary contraction, and partly, because smaller motor units explored by v-SFEMG are probably more abnormal in MG than larger motor units mainly contributing to a decrement. Both factors make v-SFEMG much more sensitive than RNS.
METHODS: We examined v-SFEMG and RNS successively on the same day in the same EDC muscle. We studied 45 examinations of both v-SFEMG and RNS in 29 patients suffering from MG, together with examinations of RNS in 30 control subjects.
RESULTS: Forty-one of 45 (91%) v-SFEMGs showed abnormal results, whereas only 18/45 (40%) RNSs showed an abnormal decrement. The percentage of decrement showed similar correlations with 3 v-SFEMG parameters: percentage of abnormal pairs, percentage of blocking pairs, and the mean MCD value. Examinations showing a significant decrement in RNS had at least 60%, and usually no less than 90%, abnormal pairs, and 10-80% blocking pairs. Some muscles without a decrement had up to 50% blocking pairs.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the blocking phenomenon observed in v-SFEMG is not a direct counterpart of the decrement in RNS. This must be partly because fibers contributing to the decrement are continuously blocked during voluntary contraction, and partly, because smaller motor units explored by v-SFEMG are probably more abnormal in MG than larger motor units mainly contributing to a decrement. Both factors make v-SFEMG much more sensitive than RNS.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app