The utility of motor unit number estimation methods versus quantitative motor unit potential analysis in diagnosis of ALS.

Autor: Jacobsen AB; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark., Kristensen RS; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark., Witt A; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark., Kristensen AG; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Danish Pain Research Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark., Duez L; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark., Beniczky S; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark., Fuglsang-Frederiksen A; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark., Tankisi H; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: hatitank@rm.dk.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology [Clin Neurophysiol] 2018 Mar; Vol. 129 (3), pp. 646-653. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Jan 17.
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.01.002
Abstrakt: Objective: To compare the diagnostic utility of motor unit number estimation (MUNE) methods to motor unit potential (MUP) analysis in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
Methods: Twenty-five patients (1 definite, 11 probable, 9 possible ALS and 4 progressive muscular atrophy) and 22 healthy controls were prospectively included. Quantitative MUP analysis and three MUNE methods; Multiple Point Stimulation MUNE (MPS), Motor Unit Number Index (MUNIX) and MScanFit MUNE (MScan) were done in abductor pollicis brevis muscle. The sensitivities were compared by McNemar chi-square test. MUNE, MUP and revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) parameters were correlated by regression analysis.
Results: The sensitivities of MPS (76%) and MScan (68%) were higher than MUP duration (36%) and amplitude (40%) in detecting motor unit loss (p < 0.05). MUNE methods increased the categorical probability from possible to probable ALS in 4 patients (16%). There was only significant correlation between ALSFRS-R and MScan (r = 0.443, p = 0.027) among the electrophysiological tests. MUNE methods did not correlate to MUP parameters.
Conclusions: MUNE methods are more sensitive in showing abnormality than MUP analysis.
Significance: MUNE methods, in particular MScan, may have the potential to be implemented in the clinical practice for diagnosis and follow-up of neuromuscular disorders particularly ALS.
(Copyright © 2018 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: