medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3252 (Print)
Revista de la Asociación Médica del Centro Médico ABC

2012, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

An Med Asoc Med Hosp ABC 2012; 57 (2)

Magnetic stimulation vs electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves in the upper extremities

Reséndiz RA, Arch TE, Collado CMÁ, Sánchez EÓ, Collado OMÁ, Shkurovich BP

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 98-103
PDF size: 109.56 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Magnetic stimulation clinical utility in peripheral nerve pathology hasn’t been well established. Previous studies using this technique have shown inconclusive results. Objectives: • Demonstrate that conduction velocities obtained by magnetic stimulation do not have significant variability compared to electrical stimulation. • Demonstrate that this technique produces less pain compared to electrical stimulation. Material and methods: The values obtained by magnetic stimulation of sensory and motor fibers from median and cubital nerves were compared to electrical stimulation; the degree of discomfort was evaluated for each test. Results: The values obtained in motor fibers didn’t show a significant difference when comparing both techniques. However, opposite results were obtained in sensory fibers in every parameter evaluated. Much less pain was found with magnetic stimulation. Conclusions: Magnetic stimulation of motor nerves has an excellent concordance and no variability compared to the electrical stimulation. There are limitations in sensory nerve conduction studies because of difficulties to apply submaximal and focal stimuli with the available coils. The discomfort felt with magnetic stimulation and the no variability in motor nerve conduction studies constitute an alternative diagnostic test in special cases (children) and a future work line in the future.


REFERENCES

  1. Kandel ER, Schwatz JH. Principles of neural science. 4a ed. Nueva York: McGraw Hill; 2000: 182-188.

  2. Aminoff MJ. Electrodiagnosis in clinical neurology. 5a ed. Filadelfia: Elsevier; 2005: 593-598.

  3. Kimura J. Electrodiagnosis in disease of nerve and muscle: Principles and practices. 2a ed. Filadelfia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1989: 92-100.

  4. Caress J. Neurophysiology of nerve conduction studies. In: Blum A. The Clinical Neurophysiology Primer. New Jersey: Humana Press Inc; 2007: 207-217.

  5. Gregory J. Technical, physiological and anatomic considerations in nerve conduction studies. In: Blum A. The Clinical Neurophysiology Primer. New Jersey: Humana Press Inc; 2007: 217-229.

  6. Evans BA. The utility of magnetic stimulation for routine peripheral nerve conduction studies. Muscle Nerve 1988; 11: 1074-1078.

  7. Amassian VE, Maccabee PJ, Cracco RQ. Focal stimulation of human peripheral nerve with the magnetic coil: A comparison with electrical stimulation. Exp Neurol 1989; 103: 282-289.

  8. Olney RK, So YT, Goodin DS, Aminof MJ. A comparison of magnetic and electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves. Muscle Nerve 1988; 13: 957-963.

  9. Van Soens I, Struys MM, Polis IE, Bhatti SF, Van Meervenne SA, Martié VA, Nollet H, Tshamala M, Van Ham LM. Magnetic stimulation of the radial nerve in dogs and cats with brachial plexus trauma: a report of 53 cases. Vet J 2009; 182(1): 108-113.

  10. Barker A. An Introduction to the basic principles of magnetic nerve stimulation. J Clin Neurophysiol 1991; 8: 26-37.

  11. Halar EM, Venkatesh B. Nerve conduction velocity measurements: improved accuracy using superimposed response waves. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988; 57: 451-457.

  12. Collado-Corona MA, Mora-Magaña I, Cordero GL, Toral-Martiñón R, Shkurovich-Zaslavsky M, Ruiz-García M, González-Astiazarán A. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and acoustic trauma or hearing loss in children. Neurol Res 2001; 23 (4): 343-346.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com