Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
Strength-duration time constant and rheobase measurements: Comparison of the threshold tracking method and a manual procedure.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tyberghein Maelle, Janssen Arnaud, Wang François Charles
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the strength-duration time constant (SDTC) and rheobase measurements obtained by the threshold tracking method (TT) and by a non-automated method (MM).
METHODS: The MM procedure involved measuring, using a routine electrodiagnostic device, the intensity required to evoke a motor response whose amplitude corresponds to 40% of the maximum amplitude for four stimulus duration (1.0, 0.7, 0.5, 0.2 ms), and studying the linear relationship between stimulus charge and stimulus duration (slope = rheobase, intercept on the x-axis = SDTC). Using TT and MM, 30 successive healthy subjects (mean age = 38 years old) underwent a prospective evaluation of SDTC and rheobase of the median nerve motor axons at the wrist. Nerve stimulation and bipolar recording of evoked motor responses were performed with disposable self-adhesive surface electrodes.
RESULTS: The Spearman correlations between the two methods were 0.78 (p < 0.0001) for SDTC and 0.96 (p < 0.0001) for the rheobase. The Bland-Altman analysis did not reveal any systematic bias of MM compared to TT.
CONCLUSIONS: The MM procedure was reliable for strength-duration relationship analysis.
SIGNIFICANCE: We encourage neurophysiologists, who do not have dedicated threshold tracking equipment, not to hesitate to use these simple tools to assess peripheral nerve excitability.
METHODS: The MM procedure involved measuring, using a routine electrodiagnostic device, the intensity required to evoke a motor response whose amplitude corresponds to 40% of the maximum amplitude for four stimulus duration (1.0, 0.7, 0.5, 0.2 ms), and studying the linear relationship between stimulus charge and stimulus duration (slope = rheobase, intercept on the x-axis = SDTC). Using TT and MM, 30 successive healthy subjects (mean age = 38 years old) underwent a prospective evaluation of SDTC and rheobase of the median nerve motor axons at the wrist. Nerve stimulation and bipolar recording of evoked motor responses were performed with disposable self-adhesive surface electrodes.
RESULTS: The Spearman correlations between the two methods were 0.78 (p < 0.0001) for SDTC and 0.96 (p < 0.0001) for the rheobase. The Bland-Altman analysis did not reveal any systematic bias of MM compared to TT.
CONCLUSIONS: The MM procedure was reliable for strength-duration relationship analysis.
SIGNIFICANCE: We encourage neurophysiologists, who do not have dedicated threshold tracking equipment, not to hesitate to use these simple tools to assess peripheral nerve excitability.