Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology · 2007
Conduction velocity of the human phrenic nerve in the neck.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Morélot-Panzini Capucine, Fournier Emmanuel, Donzel-Raynaud Christine, Dubourg Odile, Willer Jean-Claude, Similowski Thomas
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To measure phrenic nerve conduction velocity in the neck in humans.
SCOPE: We studied 15 healthy subjects (9 men, 32.4+/-6.7). We performed bipolar electrical phrenic stimulation in the neck, from a distal and a proximal stimulation site, and recorded diaphragm electromyographic responses on the surface of the chest. The ratio of the between-site distance to the latency difference provided phrenic velocities. Ulnar motor velocity was assessed similarly. In addition, five homogeneous patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A (CMT1A) were studied for validation purposes. We obtained diaphragmatic responses from the two stimulation sites in all cases. The distal latencies (anterior axillary line recording) were 6.51+/-0.63ms (right) and 6.13+/-0.64ms (left). The minimal between site distance was 39mm. Phrenic motor velocity was 55.2+/-6.3ms(-1) (right) and 56.3+/-7.2ms(-1) (left). In CMT1A, phrenic velocities were 17.1+/-8.1ms(-1) (from 7 to 32ms(-1)) and were similar to ulnar and median velocities.
CONCLUSIONS: Phrenic nerve velocities can be estimated in humans and compare with upper limb motor conduction velocities. This should refine the investigation of phrenic function in peripheral neuropathies.
SCOPE: We studied 15 healthy subjects (9 men, 32.4+/-6.7). We performed bipolar electrical phrenic stimulation in the neck, from a distal and a proximal stimulation site, and recorded diaphragm electromyographic responses on the surface of the chest. The ratio of the between-site distance to the latency difference provided phrenic velocities. Ulnar motor velocity was assessed similarly. In addition, five homogeneous patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A (CMT1A) were studied for validation purposes. We obtained diaphragmatic responses from the two stimulation sites in all cases. The distal latencies (anterior axillary line recording) were 6.51+/-0.63ms (right) and 6.13+/-0.64ms (left). The minimal between site distance was 39mm. Phrenic motor velocity was 55.2+/-6.3ms(-1) (right) and 56.3+/-7.2ms(-1) (left). In CMT1A, phrenic velocities were 17.1+/-8.1ms(-1) (from 7 to 32ms(-1)) and were similar to ulnar and median velocities.
CONCLUSIONS: Phrenic nerve velocities can be estimated in humans and compare with upper limb motor conduction velocities. This should refine the investigation of phrenic function in peripheral neuropathies.