Zhonghua yi xue za zhi · 2013
[Comparative study on diagnostic significance of urethral sphincter versus external anal sphincter electromyography in patients with multiple system atrophy].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяПоддержка 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.
Qiu Feng, Liu Jian-guo, Li Li-ping, Song Dong-dong, Yao Wei, Qi Xiao-kun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of external anal sphincter electromyography (EAS-EMG) versus urethral sphincter electromyography (US-EMG) in patients with multiple system atrophy (MSA).
METHODS: A total of 27 MSA patients were examined with EAS and US-EMG as treatment group while 28 non-MSA subjects as control group. Spontaneous activities during relaxation, mean duration & amplitude of motor unit potential (MUP), percentage of polyphasic and variations during strong contraction were recorded and analyzed statistically.
RESULTS: There was significant difference in light contraction between MSA and non-MSA cases on both EAS-EMG and US-EMG (EAS-EMG, P < 0.001; US-EMG, P = 0.002) . Meanwhile, strong contraction and percentage of polyphasic showed significant differences between MSA and non-MSA cases on EAS-EMG only (strong contraction, P = 0.016; percentage of polyphasic, P = 0.004) . EAS-EMG showed more significant changes in neurogenic injury than US-EMG.
CONCLUSIONS: US-EMG and EAS-EMG are valuable for the diagnosis of MSA. The differences of multiple parameters of EAS-EMG were more significant than those of US-EMG for MSA cases. US-EMG may serve as a supplement of EAS-EMG in case of restriction.
METHODS: A total of 27 MSA patients were examined with EAS and US-EMG as treatment group while 28 non-MSA subjects as control group. Spontaneous activities during relaxation, mean duration & amplitude of motor unit potential (MUP), percentage of polyphasic and variations during strong contraction were recorded and analyzed statistically.
RESULTS: There was significant difference in light contraction between MSA and non-MSA cases on both EAS-EMG and US-EMG (EAS-EMG, P < 0.001; US-EMG, P = 0.002) . Meanwhile, strong contraction and percentage of polyphasic showed significant differences between MSA and non-MSA cases on EAS-EMG only (strong contraction, P = 0.016; percentage of polyphasic, P = 0.004) . EAS-EMG showed more significant changes in neurogenic injury than US-EMG.
CONCLUSIONS: US-EMG and EAS-EMG are valuable for the diagnosis of MSA. The differences of multiple parameters of EAS-EMG were more significant than those of US-EMG for MSA cases. US-EMG may serve as a supplement of EAS-EMG in case of restriction.