Motor evoked potentials recorded from muscles versus nerves after lumbar stimulation in healthy subjects and patients with disc-root conflicts

Abstract

Objective:

The study aimed to describe properties and to prove diagnostic usefulness of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) recordings from muscles versus nerves of lower extremities when induced at lumbar levels with magnetic field.

Methods:

Methodologically similar MEPs recordings from muscles and nerves of lower extremities were performed once in healthy volunteers (N = 43) and patients with disc-root conflicts at lumbar spine levels (N = 43, proven in MRI studies). Simultaneous electroneurographic (ENG) recordings following stimulation of peroneal nerves verified neural impulses transmission in motor fibers peripherally and at L5 ventral roots.

Results:

ENG studies in patients proven only moderate axonal type of peroneal nerves injury. The mean values of MEPs amplitudes recorded from nerves were significantly different from those recorded in anatomically related muscles, both in controls (1179.6 ± 451.2 vs 1718.3 ± 481.3) and patients (495.6 ± 275.9 vs 1218.2 ± 465.5) (p = 0.0009–0.0000012); they are about 30% and 51% smaller, respectively. In both groups of subjects, latencies of MEPs recorded from nerves were shorter at about 3.0 ms and characterized by a slightly longer duration (3.0–5.0 ms) than those recorded from muscles. Results revealed positive correlations between decrease of amplitudes in sEMG and MEPs recordings from lower extremities muscles indicating consequences of pathology in neural transmission from spinal centers.

Conclusions:

Results of this study point to clear-cut characteristics of MEPs induced oververtebrally with the magnetic field in parameters recorded in healthy subjects and patients with consequences of chronic L4-L5 low back pain, which can be easily implemented in clinical practice. Non-invasive method of MEPs recorded from nerves can be helpful for diagnosing of patients with visible atrophic changes in muscles and simultaneous symptoms of only slight pathology in transmission of nerve impulses peripherally.

Keywords

Musculoskeletal disorder motor evoked potentials recordings from muscle and nerve electroneurographic recordings healthy volunteers patients with lumbar disc-root conflicts

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Wojtysiak

Huber

Wiertel-Krawczuk

, et al. Pre- and postoperative evaluation of patients with lumbosacral disc herniation by neurophysiological and clinical assessment. Spine 2014; 39(21): 1792–1800.

Bryndal

Wojtysiak

Moskal

, et al. Motor evoked potentials after supraspinal stimulation in pre- and postoperative evaluations of patients with cervical radiculopathy. Biomed Res Int 2019; 2019: 1–11.

Doherty

Vandervoort

Brown

WF.

Effects of ageing on the motor unit: a brief review. Can J Appl Physiol 1993; 18(4): 331–358.

Krarup

Archibald

Madison

RD.

Factors that influence peripheral nerve regeneration: an electrophysiological study of the monkey median nerve. Ann Neurol 2002; 51(1): 69–81.

Krarup

Boeckstyns

Ibsen

, et al. Remodeling of motor units after nerve regeneration studied by quantitative electromyography. Clin Neurophysiol 2016; 127(2): 1675–1682.

Park

Hyun

SJ.

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spinal surgery. World J Clin Cases 2015; 3(9): 765–773.

Huber

Lisiński

Samborski

, et al. The effect of early isometric exercises on clinical and neurophysiological parameters in patients with sciatica: an interventional randomized single-blinded study. Isokinet Exerc Sci 2011; 19(3): 207–214.

Huber

Lisiński

Polowczyk

Reinvestigation of the dysfunction in neck and shoulder girdle muscles as the reason of cervicogenic headache among office workers. Disabil Rehabil 2013; 35(10): 793–802.

Huber

Leszczyńska

Wincek

, et al. The role of peripheral nerve electrotherapy in functional recovery of muscle motor units in patients after incomplete spinal cord injury. Appl Sci 2021; 11: 9764.

10.

Leszczyńska

Wincek

Fortuna

, et al. Treatment of patients with cervical and upper thoracic incomplete spinal cord injury using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Int J Artif Organs 2020; 43(5): 323–331.

11.

Hallet

Chokroverty

(eds) Magnetic stimulation in clinical neurophysiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005.

12.

Deletis

The ‘motor’ inaccuracy in neurogenic motor evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 2001; 112: 1365–1366.