Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021
Neurophysiologic assessment of small fibre damage in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Isak Baris, Tankisi Hatice, Pugdahl Kirsten, Ventzel Lise, Finnerup Nanna Brix, Fuglsang-Frederiksen Anders
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: In patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), demonstration of small fibre (SF) damage is important to understand chronic late effects.
METHODS: Thirty patients having complaints compatible with possible CIPN following treatment with oxaliplatin or docetaxel were compared with 27 healthy subjects. All subjects were evaluated with quantitative sensory testing (QST) assessing SF function and laser evoked potentials (LEP). In addition, SF-damage was assessed using cutaneous silent periods evoked with electrical (El-CSP) and laser (Ls-CSP) stimuli.
RESULTS: For LEP, N2P2 amplitudes were significantly smaller in patients than controls in both upper (P = 0.007) and lower extremities (P = 0.002), and the N1 amplitude in upper extremities of patients were significantly smaller than in controls (P = 0.001). SF-QST, LEP, Ls-CSP, and El-CSP were abnormal in 10 (33.3%), 16 (53.3%), 19 (63.3%), and 24 (80%) of CIPN patients, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with possible CIPN, El-CSP and Ls-CSP were more often abnormal than LEP and QST. This is probably because El-CSP and Ls-CSP inform mainly about peripheral nociceptive fibres, while LEP and QST inform about peripheral and central nociceptive pathways together.
SIGNIFICANCE: LEP and QST are established methods to detect SF-damage. El- and Ls-CSP might help clinicians in diagnosing SF-damage.
METHODS: Thirty patients having complaints compatible with possible CIPN following treatment with oxaliplatin or docetaxel were compared with 27 healthy subjects. All subjects were evaluated with quantitative sensory testing (QST) assessing SF function and laser evoked potentials (LEP). In addition, SF-damage was assessed using cutaneous silent periods evoked with electrical (El-CSP) and laser (Ls-CSP) stimuli.
RESULTS: For LEP, N2P2 amplitudes were significantly smaller in patients than controls in both upper (P = 0.007) and lower extremities (P = 0.002), and the N1 amplitude in upper extremities of patients were significantly smaller than in controls (P = 0.001). SF-QST, LEP, Ls-CSP, and El-CSP were abnormal in 10 (33.3%), 16 (53.3%), 19 (63.3%), and 24 (80%) of CIPN patients, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with possible CIPN, El-CSP and Ls-CSP were more often abnormal than LEP and QST. This is probably because El-CSP and Ls-CSP inform mainly about peripheral nociceptive fibres, while LEP and QST inform about peripheral and central nociceptive pathways together.
SIGNIFICANCE: LEP and QST are established methods to detect SF-damage. El- and Ls-CSP might help clinicians in diagnosing SF-damage.